2011 (1) TMI 1290 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of the writ petition Held that - It is rather difficult to accept the submission of the counsel that the petitioner s representation does not bar the writ petition. Though it was not presented in the proper form it would certainly amount to the petitioner availing of the remedy under the VATAct. Further the second respondent himself treated the representation as an appeal and returned the same requiring rectification of the mistakes. On this ground the writ petition is not maintainable. The transit pass produced before us contains 10 columns only and the signature of the CTO concerned and the certification by the officer in-charge of the exit check-post are absent. Therefore we are not inclined to attach any importance to the transit pass produced along with the reply affidavit. We hasten to add that these are questions which have to be agitated before the appellate authority and the writ petition is not a proper remedy. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Assessment orders and demand notices under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Alleged failure to surrender transit pass at exit check-post and resulting implications.
3. Representation and rejection of objections by the first respondent.
4. Maintainability of writ petitions and compliance with statutory requirements.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice and alternative remedies.
6. Examination of the transit pass and related discrepancies.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns six writ petitions filed by Economic Transport Organisation Limited challenging assessment orders and demand notices issued under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The company was aggrieved by the orders demanding value-added tax, prompting the legal challenge.

2. The issue of the alleged failure to surrender the transit pass at the exit check-post was central to the case. The petitioner's vehicle, engaged in transporting goods, was accused of not complying with section 47 of the VAT Act by not surrendering the transit pass. This non-compliance led to implications, including the presumption that the goods carried were sold in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. Following the issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner submitted a representation denying receipt of the show-cause notice. However, the representation was rejected by the first respondent, advising the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Despite subsequent attempts to rectify the submission, the petitioner ultimately filed the writ petition after a considerable delay.

4. The court analyzed the maintainability of the writ petitions in light of the statutory requirements. It was established that the petitioner's representation, although not in proper form, essentially amounted to an appeal to the second respondent. As such, pursuing remedies under the VAT Act precluded the petitioner from simultaneously seeking relief through a writ petition.

5. The judgment addressed the plea of violation of principles of natural justice and the availability of alternative remedies. It was noted that in tax matters, grievances related to natural justice could be raised before the appellate authority rather than directly before the High Court. Citing relevant legal precedents, the court emphasized the role of the appellate mechanism in addressing issues of procedural fairness and compliance with natural justice.

6. Lastly, the court examined the transit pass presented as evidence and identified discrepancies that cast doubt on its authenticity and compliance with statutory requirements. The absence of essential signatures and certifications raised suspicions about the validity of the document. The court emphasized that such technical issues should be raised before the appellate authority, indicating that the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy for addressing these concerns. Ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed, with costs imposed on the petitioners for each case.

← Previous Next →