2005 (2) TMI 784 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated July 31, 2003 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana.
2. Liability created against the assessee under the State Act and the Central Act.
3. Attachment of the assessee's property due to failure to satisfy the demand.
4. Purchase of the assessee's properties by M/s. M.H. Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
5. Initiation of proceedings against the assessee for levy of interest and penalty.
6. Order of attachment challenged by the petitioner and appeal allowed by District Collector.
7. Appeal dismissed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, and review application allowed.
8. Revision filed under the 1887 Act challenging the review order.
9. Observations made regarding the review application and the Commissioner's decision.
10. Jurisdictional infirmity and error of law in the impugned order.
11. Barred appeal by the Assessing Authority and the subsequent review of the order.
12. Legal justification for quashing the order dated September 6, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The State of Haryana filed a petition to quash the order dated July 31, 2003, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was based on the liability created against the assessee under the State Act and the Central Act. The assessee's property was attached due to failure to satisfy the demand, leading to the purchase of the properties by M/s. M.H. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. The initiation of proceedings against the assessee for levy of interest and penalty resulted in a series of legal actions and appeals.

2. The District Collector, Faridabad, allowed the appeal challenging the order of attachment, but the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, dismissed the subsequent appeal filed by the Assessing Authority. A review application was allowed, leading to a revision filed under the 1887 Act. The revision challenged the review order, highlighting issues of jurisdiction, delay in filing appeals, and the justification for quashing the order dated September 6, 2002.

3. The High Court analyzed the jurisdictional infirmity and error of law in the impugned order. The Commissioner's decision to review the order dated October 5, 2001, without tangible reasons, was questioned. The court noted the delay in filing appeals and the lack of justification for the review process. The Senior Deputy Advocate-General failed to establish the timeliness of the appeal and the legal basis for reviewing the Commissioner's order, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of respondent No. 2 to quash the order dated September 6, 2002. The court found no justification to interfere with the well-reasoned order, considering the various legal proceedings, appeals, and challenges involved in the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and timelines in such matters.