2006 (11) TMI 564 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Jurisdiction of the impugned orders due to the absence of a valid notice.
3. Applicability of notices served under the Bihar Sales Tax Act to reassessment under the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. Availability of alternative remedy in the absence of functioning Tribunal.
5. Demand for disputed tax amount and issuance of road permits by the Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the reassessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the period 1993-94. The main issue was the validity of the reassessment without a valid notice under section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. The petitioner argued that the assessment order from 2001 was reopened without proper notice. However, the respondents contended that the impugned orders were passed after serving notices based on the order of remand by the appellate authority. The court examined the validity of the notice and its implications on the reassessment order.

2. Two assessment orders were initially passed in 1998 under the CST and Bihar Sales Tax Act for the year 1993-94. Subsequent appeals and remands led to revised assessment orders in 2001. The petitioner failed to produce supporting materials, leading to further remand in 2004. Notices were issued in 2005 and 2006 for reassessment under both tax acts. The petitioner argued that the notice mentioned the BST registration number, indicating assessment under BST, not CST. The court held that the notices served were applicable for reassessment under both acts, considering the interrelated nature of intra-State and inter-State sales.

3. The court determined that the notices served for reassessment under BST and CST were valid, rejecting the petitioner's claim of lack of notice under CST for reassessment. The interconnection of intra-State and inter-State sales justified the notices issued. The court emphasized the applicability of the notices under both tax acts based on relevant legal provisions and rules. The judgments cited by the petitioner were deemed irrelevant due to factual distinctions.

4. Regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, the petitioner mentioned the non-functioning Tribunal, hindering the revision process under the Bihar Finance Act. The respondents suggested moving before the Commissioner for revision under a specific section of the Act. The court clarified that pursuing revision before the Commissioner would not prejudice the parties, as the current order did not delve into the merits of the sales tax dispute.

5. Lastly, the petitioner raised concerns about the Deputy Commissioner's demand for disputed tax amounts and the withholding of road permits affecting business operations. The court directed the issuance of road permits upon payment of admitted tax and depositing a specified amount, ensuring the petitioner's business continuity amidst the ongoing dispute. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed with the specified observations and directions.