1997 (8) TMI 505 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a second notice for recovery of tax arrears can be issued after the withdrawal of an earlier notice challenged in a writ petition.
2. Whether the initiation of recovery proceedings without considering the question of waiver is valid.
3. Whether the refusal to waive certain amounts without notice and hearing the appellant violates principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that a second notice for recovery of tax arrears could not be issued after the withdrawal of an earlier notice challenged in a writ petition. The court rejected this contention, stating that unless there is a legal provision preventing the issuance of a second notice or a limitation period, there is no bar to issuing a second notice for recovery. The court held that there was no legal principle restricting the issuance of a second notice in this case.

2. The appellant contended that the recovery proceedings initiated without considering the question of waiver were invalid. The court noted that the appellant had the opportunity to challenge the rejection of the waiver claim before the competent authority or court. The court emphasized that if there was no provision for appeal or revision, the appellant could approach the court to challenge the rejection. The court found that the appellant had avenues to address the waiver issue through appropriate legal channels.

3. The appellant raised concerns about the refusal to waive certain amounts without notice and hearing, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the orders related to waiver were passed on specific dates, and the appellant had the opportunity to challenge the rejection through proper legal channels. The court emphasized that the appellant could raise grievances when the proceedings for recovery under section 26 of the Act were actually initiated. The court upheld the order of the learned single Judge, stating that the appellant could present all contentions during the recovery proceedings.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ appeal, stating that the appellant could raise all contentions during the recovery proceedings under section 26 of the Act. The court emphasized that the appellant had the opportunity to present grievances and contentions at the appropriate stage. The dismissal of the writ appeal did not preclude the appellant from asserting available contentions in response to actions taken under section 26 of the Act.