2006 (5) TMI 456 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fresh assessment orders under Section 18 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Allegation of submission of fake "C" forms.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fresh Assessment Orders:
The petitioners challenged the fresh assessment orders issued under Section 18 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, in conjunction with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The original assessment orders for various years had determined the tax as Nil since the entire sale was made outside the state in the course of inter-State trade. The reassessment was initiated based on allegations of fake "C" forms submitted by the petitioners.

2. Allegation of Submission of Fake "C" Forms:
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners alleging the submission of fake "C" forms for the years 1998-99 and 2000-01. The petitioners were asked to justify why these forms should not be treated as fake or obsolete. The petitioners responded by stating that the sales covered by the "C" forms were made to genuine parties and that they had no mechanism to verify the genuineness of the forms received. They requested the Superintendent of Taxes to provide all materials and evidence in possession to substantiate the claim of fake forms. Despite their response, the Superintendent of Taxes issued an order for reassessment and demanded payment of Rs. 1,17,834 as tax and interest for the period ending 1998-99.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The petitioners had the option to appeal against the impugned orders as provided under Chapter VIII of the AGST Act, 1993, and Sections 19 and 20 of the CST Act, 1956. The court emphasized that the purpose of judicial review is to review the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The court cited several precedents to support the principle that alternative remedies should be exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the petitioners had not provided sufficient reasons for bypassing the statutory appeal process.

Conclusion:
The court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The petitioners were directed to approach the appellate forums as provided under the relevant statutes. The writ petitions were dismissed without any opinion on the merits of the case, and no order as to costs was made.