9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 854 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDeferment of the revision proceedings request rejected - Held that - In the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that exercise of powers by the Joint Commissioner under section 20(2) of the APGST Act is without jurisdiction. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice nor are the vires of any statutory provision under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 21 of the APGST Act without exhausting which they have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the existence of an alternative remedy we see no reason to express any opinion on the submission made by the learned counsel on the merits of the impugned order.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the first respondent under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act. 2. Applicability of the bar under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act. 3. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 21 of the APGST Act. 4. Merits of the impugned revision order dated February 17, 2009. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the First Respondent under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act: The petitioner contended that the first respondent could not exercise revisionary powers under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act due to the pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the earlier assessment year 2001-02. The first respondent, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Vorion Chemicals & Distilleries Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, rejected this contention and proceeded with the revision for the assessment year 2003-04. Applicability of the Bar under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act: The petitioner argued that Section 20(2A) prohibits the exercise of revisionary powers on any issue or question pending before the Tribunal. The first respondent held that the prohibition under Section 20(2A) applies only to questions of law, not facts. This interpretation was supported by the Full Bench judgment in Indo National Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which clarified that the bar under Section 20(2A) applies to issues of law to prevent the assessee from being vexed repeatedly on the same legal question. The court observed that the issues in the revision were factual, such as whether the turnover included freight and the nature of purchase agreements with unregistered dealers. These were specific to the assessment year 2003-04 and did not invoke the bar under Section 20(2A). Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 21 of the APGST Act: The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 21 of the APGST Act, which they had not exhausted. The court agreed, noting that the existence of an alternative remedy typically precludes the invocation of the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the order is not without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. Merits of the Impugned Revision Order Dated February 17, 2009: The petitioner also challenged the merits of the revision order, arguing that the first respondent's conclusions were perverse. The court, however, refrained from examining the merits, emphasizing that such factual determinations are not typically reviewed under Article 226. The court maintained that the appropriate forum for such disputes was the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the first respondent's jurisdiction to pass the impugned revision order. It held that the bar under Section 20(2A) did not apply to the factual issues in the case and that the petitioner should have pursued the alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 21 of the APGST Act. The court did not address the merits of the revision order, leaving it open for the petitioner to challenge it before the Tribunal.
|
