2000 (8) TMI 1117 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion, to issue show cause notices.
2. Validity of the show cause notices and subsequent actions.
3. Alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner.
4. Interpretation of notifications regarding the use of ST Form No. 17.
5. Challenge to the notification as ultra vires the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
6. Maintainability of petitions against show cause notices.
7. Existence and efficacy of alternative remedies under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion, to issue the show cause notices. The court examined whether the officer had the authority to issue such notices under the relevant statutory provisions. The court concluded that the officer did have jurisdiction to issue the notices, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notices and Subsequent Actions:
The petitioner argued that the entire notices and the action purported to be taken in pursuance thereto were without jurisdiction. The court found that the show cause notices were validly issued and that the subsequent actions taken by the Commercial Taxes Department were within their legal authority. The court emphasized that the statutory process must be followed before any penal action is taken.

3. Alleged Evasion of Tax by the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that there was no evasion of tax as the use of ST Form No. 17 was proper. The court determined that the payment of tax at a concessional rate of 3% instead of the applicable 4% constituted misuse of the form and amounted to tax evasion. The court upheld the issuance of the show cause notices on this ground.

4. Interpretation of Notifications Regarding the Use of ST Form No. 17:
The petitioner argued that the interpretation of the notifications by the State and the Commercial Taxes Officer was incorrect. The court analyzed the relevant notifications and concluded that the interpretation by the authorities was correct. The use of ST Form No. 17 at a concessional rate of 3% was found to be improper under the applicable notifications.

5. Challenge to the Notification as Ultra Vires the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994:
The petitioner alternatively submitted that the notification itself was liable to be quashed as ultra vires the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The court did not find merit in this argument and held that the notification was within the legislative competence of the State and was valid under the Act.

6. Maintainability of Petitions Against Show Cause Notices:
The court examined whether the petitions directly against show cause notices were maintainable. It was held that no petition directly against a show cause notice is maintainable, especially when an effective alternative remedy exists. The court emphasized that the statutory remedies provided under the Act must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.

7. Existence and Efficacy of Alternative Remedies Under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994:
The court discussed the provisions of sections 84, 85, and 86 of the Act, which provide for appeals and revisions. It was noted that these sections offer an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. The court reiterated that the rule is to follow the alternative remedy unless exceptions such as infringement of fundamental rights, constitutional validity of a statute, or prevention of public injury exist. None of these exceptions were found in the present case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, directing the parties to pursue the alternative remedies provided under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. It was emphasized that bypassing statutory remedies should not be permitted unless specific exceptions apply. The interim relief granted was vacated.