2011 (7) TMI 1087 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of writ - submittion of form F in respect of the transactions, which were claimed by it to be by way of job-work, and on which the goods were not transferred - assessing authority has accepted all those transactions on which form F was produced and has recorded findings that in respect of the job-work of ₹ 1,26,23,771 neither form F has been produced nor other evidence has been produced on which the job-work may be verified - Held that - From the assessment order, we find that the assessing authority has taken into account the judgment of this court and has not accepted only those transactions where the documents, or other evidence with regard to the job-work was not verified - There is no jurisdictional error in the order to interfere in the matter in the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we relegate the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Assessment order challenge, compliance with court directions, contempt of court, jurisdictional error, availability of statutory remedy.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order on job-work transactions where form F of the Central sales tax was not issued. The High Court had earlier allowed the writ petition and provided specific directions for such cases. The petitioner complied with the court's directions by submitting form F for certain transactions, but the assessing authority rejected transactions amounting to Rs. 1,26,23,771 for lack of form F or verifiable evidence.

Compliance with Court Directions:
The assessing authority's order was examined, and it was found that they had considered the court's judgment. Transactions were accepted only when supported by proper documentation or evidence related to the job-work. The court concluded that there was no disobedience of its order by the assessing authority in this regard.

Contempt of Court:
The petitioner alleged that the assessing authority disobeyed the court's order and committed contempt by rejecting transactions for not producing form F. However, the court disagreed with this assertion, stating that the assessing authority acted in accordance with the court's directions by verifying the necessary documentation.

Jurisdictional Error:
The court found no jurisdictional error in the assessing authority's order that would warrant interference through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order instead of challenging it through a writ petition.

Availability of Statutory Remedy:
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of the availability of a statutory alternative remedy, i.e., filing an appeal. The court instructed the competent authority to consider any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on its own merits, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The order clarified that observations made in the dismissal would not impact the appellate authority's independent assessment of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Allahabad High Court provides insights into the assessment order challenge, compliance with court directions, contempt of court allegations, jurisdictional errors, and the availability of statutory remedies for the concerned parties involved in the case.