Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (11) TMI 1047 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the tax credit denial for purchases made from M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd.
2. Authority and jurisdiction of the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner to detain goods under section 67(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
3. Availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of the Tax Credit Denial
The petitioner challenged the denial of tax credit on purchases made from M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. after its registration was canceled effective from January 1, 2011. The respondent argued that under section 11(5) of the VAT Act, tax credit is not allowed for purchases from a dealer whose registration has been canceled. The court examined section 11 and section 27 of the VAT Act, which outline the conditions under which tax credit can be denied. The court noted that clause (mmmm) of section 11(5) specifies that tax credit is disallowed for purchases made after the dealer's name has been published under section 27(11). Since the order of cancellation was passed on March 6, 2012, and the publication would be subsequent to this date, the court concluded that tax credit cannot be denied for purchases made before March 6, 2012.

Issue 2: Authority to Detain Goods
The Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner detained the petitioner's goods under a "stop delivery" order, citing section 67(6) of the VAT Act. The court analyzed section 67, which pertains to the production and inspection of accounts and documents and the search of premises. Sub-section (6) allows the Commissioner to stop and search vehicles or places where goods are kept by a carrier or bailee if there is a belief that tax on such goods is or is likely to be evaded. The court found that neither condition was satisfied in this case, as the goods were not kept by a carrier or bailee, and there was no reason to believe that tax was likely to be evaded. The court held that the Assistant Commissioner's action exceeded the powers granted under section 67(6).

Issue 3: Availability of Alternative Remedies
The respondents contended that the petitioner had alternative remedies available and thus should not invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court reiterated that the availability of alternative remedies does not bar the court from exercising its writ jurisdiction, especially if the order is ex-facie illegal, opposed to natural justice, or passed without authority or jurisdiction. The court decided to entertain the petition given the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The court declared the "stop delivery" order communicated on 12/15.10.2012 as illegal and quashed it. The respondents were directed not to prevent the petitioner from moving the goods. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates