2008 (10) TMI 615 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Provisions of section 76(5)(a) provisions of of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that - In this case, obviously the petitioner is challenging the notices issued to him although the petitioner has brought to the notice of this court certain facts with regard to his innocence as also the fact that respondent No. 3 while issuing the notice has asserted that forgery has been committed by the petitioner, meaning thereby, respondent No. 3 has presumed the illegality without deciding the matter finally. It is true that the authorities should not take decision with a pre-occupied mind. They are required to act in accordance with law. Therefore, in my opinion, as held by the apex court in case of Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur v. Amtek India Limited reported in 2007 (2) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA officers should not act in a manner as if they are bloodhound and not watchdogs of revenue. Writ petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Department to decide the matter within a period of one week positively from today and, at the time of deciding the matter, the concerned authority shall not traverse beyond the ambit and scope of section 76(5)(a) of the Act and shall ignore the allegations levelled in the notices impugned with regard to alleged forgery allegedly committed by the petitioner and shall decide the matter independently after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by a speaking order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to multiple notices under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged various notices issued under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, alleging that the respondent failed to finalize the matter within the stipulated period, causing financial loss. The petitioner contended that all required documents were submitted but respondent No. 3 wrongfully assumed forgery, leading to the continued detention of the vehicle. The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for rationality in assessing authorities' actions.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent was unnecessarily harassing the petitioner by not releasing the vehicle promptly as mandated by the Act. The petitioner sought the release of the vehicle and goods, highlighting compliance with statutory requirements. In response, the respondents contended that the proceedings were ongoing, and the petitioner's approach to the court was premature as the matter was yet to be decided based on the documents provided.

The court noted that the respondent had presumed illegality without a final decision, emphasizing the need for authorities to act in accordance with the law. Citing relevant judgments, the court directed the respondent-Department to decide the matter within one week, disregarding the forgery allegations and providing the petitioner with a fair hearing. The court emphasized the importance of rational decision-making by authorities and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

In conclusion, the court's decision focused on ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory timelines in the proceedings initiated under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The judgment underscored the significance of rationality and lawful conduct by authorities while addressing challenges to notices and actions taken against the petitioner.