2013 (3) TMI 636 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Authority in power is supposed to manage their own affairs and to decide the cases according to their own management system uninfluenced by the inaction of the litigant. - indiscriminate use of the power to recover the dues of the revenue and the another of non giving of the opportunity of obtaining the interim order from the appellate or revisional authority when appeal or revision petitions are kept pending even without fixing the first date of hearing for several years.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Indiscriminate use of garnishee orders for revenue recovery.
2. Non-fixing of initial dates for hearing revision petitions.
3. Lack of systematic procedure for handling revision petitions.
4. Delays in the appellate and revisional process impacting interim relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Indiscriminate Use of Garnishee Orders for Revenue Recovery:
The petitioner challenged a garnishee order dated 15.1.2013, issued after three years of inaction by the revenue authorities. The court noted that the revenue authorities, possessing a strong weapon in garnishee orders, arbitrarily used it without considering the adverse impact on the business and employees. The court emphasized that harsh orders for revenue recovery should be passed only under specific circumstances. The court observed that the issue of the assessing officer's power to issue garnishee orders in long-pending revision petitions remains open for future consideration.

2. Non-fixing of Initial Dates for Hearing Revision Petitions:
The court highlighted the failure of the revisional authority to fix initial hearing dates for revision petitions, causing undue delays. It was noted that in many cases, no dates were fixed for months or years, leading to a backlog. The court emphasized that it is the duty of the revisional court to manage its affairs and not depend on the litigant's efforts to press for hearings. The court directed the revisional authority to provide year-wise pendency details and disclose the number of cases where initial dates were not fixed for over six months.

3. Lack of Systematic Procedure for Handling Revision Petitions:
The court criticized the absence of a systematic procedure for dealing with revision petitions under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006. Rule 53 only required the Commissioner to issue notices for document production but did not outline a process for handling revision petitions. The court observed that the revisional authority must manage its affairs and decide cases based on a systematic procedure, uninfluenced by the litigant's inaction. This aligns with the National Litigation Policy adopted by the Central and State Governments.

4. Delays in the Appellate and Revisional Process Impacting Interim Relief:
The court noted that delays in fixing dates for hearing revision petitions resulted in the non-consideration of interim relief applications. This led to coercive recovery measures by the revenue authorities, burdening the High Courts with unnecessary litigation. The court cited several cases from other High Courts where similar issues were observed, emphasizing the need for timely hearing of interim relief applications. The court directed the revisional authority to ensure that dates for hearing are fixed promptly without waiting for the assessee's efforts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the revisional authority must fix hearing dates systematically and promptly to avoid unnecessary delays and litigation. The court observed that the revisional authority could decide a significant number of cases within a short period if hearings were conducted regularly. The court disposed of the writ petitions with directions to the revisional authority to manage its affairs efficiently and ensure timely consideration of interim relief applications.