1986 (12) TMI 345 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the notification dated 18th July, 1979.
2. Benefit of the notification dated 29th January, 1985.
3. Rejection of exemption claim by the Sales Tax Officer.
4. Availability of alternative remedy under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Validity of the Notification dated 18th July, 1979:
The petition was filed seeking to quash provisional assessment orders and the proviso to the government notification dated 18th July, 1979. The court referred to a connected writ petition and found no merit in the contention to strike off the proviso of the notification, which required purchasing wheat from the Food Corporation of India. The court noted that the validity of the notification was admitted when issued, but subsequent policy changes led to a dispute. The argument that the change in policy affected the notification's validity was rejected.

Benefit of the Notification dated 29th January, 1985:
The petitioners claimed the benefit of a notification exempting new units from sales tax payment until 31st March, 1990. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the exemption claim under section 4-B, stating that roller flour mills were not exempted from purchase tax on buying wheat from the open market. The rejection was based on the dealer not purchasing from the Food Corporation of India. The petition challenged the provisional assessment orders based on this rejection.

Rejection of Exemption Claim by the Sales Tax Officer:
The Sales Tax Officer rejected the exemption claim of the petitioners under section 4-B, citing non-payment of purchase tax on buying wheat from the open market. The officer's rejection formed the basis of the provisional assessment orders challenged in the writ petition. The court emphasized that if aggrieved by assessment orders, the proper remedy was to file an appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to bypass statutory procedures.

Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The court highlighted that the petitioners should have pursued appeals against the assessment orders instead of seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that Article 226 is not meant to circumvent statutory procedures, especially in matters involving revenue where statutory remedies are available. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that if there were other points against the assessment orders, appeals should have been filed. The interim stay order, if any, was discharged.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures and pursuing appeals against assessment orders rather than seeking relief through Article 226 petitions.