1997 (5) TMI 412 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority are violative of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975?

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment of the Court addresses the issue of whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority, alleging that the petitioners failed to deposit the tax collected/received from the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, are in violation of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, and the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. The petitioners, registered under the Act, had received eligibility and exemption certificates subject to conditions related to tax deposits. The Assessing Authority issued a notice demanding tax deposits, which the petitioners challenged in the High Court. The petitioners contended that the conditions in the certificates were ultra vires to the Rules. The respondents argued that the petitioners had collected tax and accepted the certificates without objection. The Court considered the legality of the proceedings and the availability of alternative remedies under the Act.

The Court noted the directions issued by the Commercial Tax Commissioner regarding levy rice prices and tax payments. The legality of these instructions was challenged in multiple writ petitions. The withdrawal of the memo by the Commissioner during the proceedings was highlighted. The Court considered arguments on the maintainability of the writ petitions due to the availability of statutory remedies. The petitioners argued that the notices were harassment as they had not collected tax from the Department of Food and Civil Supplies. The Court deliberated on the impact of the withdrawn memo on the Assessing Authority's ability to decide objections impartially. The Court emphasized the importance of statutory remedies and the hierarchy of authorities for redressal.

The Court referred to precedents emphasizing that the High Court should not interfere when statutory remedies are available for redressal. It cited Supreme Court judgments and previous High Court decisions supporting this principle. The Court concluded that the writ petitions were premature and liable to be dismissed. It highlighted that the petitioners could avail remedies of appeal under the Act if adverse orders were passed. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the petitioners to raise objections before the Assessing Authority, ensuring a fair examination of their claims without premature interference by the Court.