1997 (6) TMI 348 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interim reliefs sought in the original application.
2. Seizure of goods by the respondent and penalty proceedings.
3. Contention regarding relaxation of requirements under Section 8(7) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995.
4. Consideration of ex parte interim reliefs.
5. Interpretation of Section 8(7) of the RTT Act by the Technical Member.

Analysis:

1. The original application sought interim reliefs, including the release of seized goods and dropping of penalty proceedings. The petitioner, a transport company, had goods seized by the respondent during transportation. The respondent had released some goods after a penalty payment but withheld others, leading to allegations of illegal and arbitrary actions.

2. The petitioner argued that the penalty provisions were ultra vires of the Constitution, and the respondent's actions were high-handed. The petitioner sought relaxation of the requirements under Section 8(7) of the RTT Act, emphasizing potential irreparable loss and disruption to their business. The respondent's actions were criticized, and the petitioner offered to provide guarantees to secure the goods.

3. Section 8(7) of the RTT Act sets out conditions for granting interim orders, including prior notice to the opposing party and payment of tax or security. The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to meet these requirements within the specified timeline, indicating a lack of diligence in serving advance notice to the respondent.

4. The Tribunal considered whether to grant ex parte interim reliefs, emphasizing the exceptional nature of such orders. The petitioner's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate the potential harm to their business or how they would manage operations if the goods were not released. The Tribunal highlighted the need for detailed reasons to support granting ex parte relief.

5. The Technical Member interpreted Section 8(7) of the RTT Act, distinguishing between interim orders with or without notice to the opposing party. It was concluded that the requirements of the Act were not met in this case, leading to the dismissal of the application for interim relief. The Technical Member agreed that the application should proceed after due notice to the opposing party, indicating a lack of grounds for waiving the statutory requirements.

In conclusion, the application for interim relief was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and demonstrating the exceptional nature of the circumstances to warrant ex parte relief.