1994 (10) TMI 271 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner can be considered to possess deemed registration under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder?
2. Whether the impugned order of seizure of stocks of the petitioner is without jurisdiction?
3. Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner applied for registration under section 12 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to carry on business in specified goods. The petitioner argued that under sub-rule (10)(c) and sub-rule (11) of rule 28, he should be deemed a registered trader and hence his stocks should not have been seized. However, the court held that as the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed from the date of application, the petitioner could not claim deemed registration. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot conduct business without registration, as mandated by the Act.

Issue 2:
The seizure of the petitioner's stocks was challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction. The government pleader relied on section 28(6) of the Act to justify the seizure, which allows confiscation of goods not accounted for by the dealer. The court noted that the seizure was based on non-registration under section 12, which was not a valid ground under section 28(6). The court ruled that the seizure was without jurisdiction as the registration status of the dealer was irrelevant to the seizure under the law.

Issue 3:
The court considered whether the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under section 19 of the Act would bar the writ petition. It was established that while exhaustion of alternative remedies is a factor to be considered, in cases where natural justice principles are violated or jurisdiction is lacking, the availability of an appeal does not prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The court held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and quashed it, directing the return of seized goods to the petitioner while allowing the writ petition with costs. The court clarified that this order does not prevent authorities from taking lawful action against the petitioner for conducting business without the required registration certificate.

In conclusion, the court found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the seizure order and allowing the writ petition while emphasizing the importance of complying with registration requirements under the Act.