1986 (8) TMI 435 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order and notice of demand under the Sales Tax Act.
Validity of provisional assessment and demand notice issued by the assessing authority.
Legality of attachment of petitioner's accounts by the Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer.
Interpretation of Sections 7-B, 10, 11, and 11-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
Availability of alternative remedies under the Act and the appropriateness of approaching the High Court directly.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order and notice of demand issued under the Sales Tax Act, contending that the tax returns for the relevant quarters were submitted on time except for the quarter ending on 31st December, 1985. The petitioner argued that no sale occurred until the goods supplied were accepted by the authorities, thus questioning the liability to pay tax by a specific date. However, the assessing authority issued a provisional assessment notice under section 7-B, followed by an ex parte assessment order and demand notices. The petitioner objected to the attachment of accounts by the Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, claiming it was arbitrary and not supported by the Act.

The court examined the provisions of Sections 7-B, 10, 11, and 11-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. It noted that under section 7-B, provisional assessment is initiated in cases of tax evasion or avoidance, requiring immediate payment by the dealer. The court clarified that different modes exist for regular assessment under section 10 and provisional assessment under section 7-B, each with distinct recovery procedures. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between these provisions and upheld the validity of the assessing authority's actions under section 7-B.

Regarding alternative remedies, the court highlighted that the petitioner had options under the Act, such as filing an appeal against the provisional assessment order or seeking relief under section 10-C. The court cited a Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances exist. As the petitioner had not pursued available remedies, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the authorities to expedite the pending application under section 10-C. The judgment underscored the need to discourage bypassing statutory procedures and encouraged the proper utilization of available remedies before approaching the High Court directly.