2000 (7) TMI 952 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of collection of disputed tax pending disposal of T.R.C.
2. Jurisdiction of High Court to grant stay under article 226.
3. Mandamus to interdict sales tax authorities from collecting tax.
4. Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal and statutory injunction against tax recovery.
5. Power of High Court to grant instalments under section 22.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the sales tax authorities to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs. 16.98 lakhs pending disposal of T.R.C. filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The revisional authority found the sales by the petitioner to be first sales taxable under the Act, while the petitioner contended they were second or subsequent sales. The Tribunal confirmed the revisional order, stating the petitioner failed to prove the goods were taxed under the APGST Act by the first seller. The petitioner challenged these findings in the T.R.C., citing the appellate authority's order in another case. However, the High Court held it lacked power to grant stay of tax collection during T.R.C. proceedings, as per sub-section (6A) of section 22, and dismissed the writ petition.

2. Alternatively, the petitioner requested a mandamus to prevent the sales tax authorities from collecting the tax following the Tribunal's appeal dismissal. The Court noted the statutory injunction against staying tax recovery during T.R.C. proceedings and the absence of grave hardship in the petitioner's case. It highlighted that the High Court's discretionary power, if it existed, need not be exercised in this situation. The Court suggested the petitioner seek permission to pay the tax in instalments under sub-section (6) of section 22, ultimately dismissing the writ petition without costs.

3. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the limitations on its power to grant stays on tax collection during T.R.C. proceedings and the availability of seeking instalment payments as an alternative. The Court underscored the statutory framework governing tax recovery and the need for petitioners to demonstrate hardship to warrant interim relief. The judgment clarified the boundaries of the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 and the specific provisions under the law for addressing tax payment challenges.