9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 233 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAmendment in West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Rules, 1998 - They claim that the amendments in Rule 28 would result in their suffering huge business losses. Rule 28 of the Rules providing for Issue of country spirit only on payment of duty was amended by notification no. 320-EX/O/1R-5/10 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 was substituted and sub-rule (3) thereof was deleted. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this writ petition was presented before this Court Held that - The business loss that the petitioners say they are suffering or likely to suffer, without any iota of doubt, is incidental to a levy i.e. payment of excise duty in terms of amended Rule 28. Thus, even an order for consideration of their grievance cannot be passed by this Court in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. The contention of appellant based on Section 8 of the Act read with Rule 5 as aforesaid does not appeal to me to be acceptable. I find substance in the submission of respondent that even for an order for consideration of their grievance by the official respondents, this Court is not the proper forum. The writ petition stands dismissed, without costs.
Issues:
Challenge to amendments in Rule 28 of the West Bengal Excise (Country Spirit) Rules, 2009 leading to business losses, Maintainability of writ petition before Calcutta High Court under West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Amendments in Rule 28: The petitioners, licensees/retailers of country spirit, challenged the amendments in Rule 28 of the West Bengal Excise (Country Spirit) Rules, 2009. They argued that the amendments would cause significant business losses as the maximum retail price allowed for sale would be lower than the cost of procurement. The petitioners sought various reliefs through a writ petition, including declaring the impugned notification as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Maintainability of Writ Petition: During the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. The counsel for the official respondents contended that the Taxation Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such matters. The petitioners argued that their grievance was not related to tax adjudication and, therefore, the writ petition should be allowed to proceed. 3. Jurisdiction under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act: The court examined the provisions of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, particularly Sections 5, 6, and 8. Section 5 specified that the Taxation Tribunal had jurisdiction over disputes, complaints, or offences related to tax under specified State Acts. The court analyzed the term "incidental to" in connection with levy, assessment, collection, and enforcement of tax. It concluded that the business losses claimed by the petitioners were incidental to the payment of excise duty and, therefore, fell within the jurisdiction of the Taxation Tribunal. 4. Dismissal of the Writ Petition: Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that even for the consideration of the petitioners' grievance by the official respondents, the Calcutta High Court was not the appropriate forum. The petitioners were directed to approach the Taxation Tribunal in accordance with the law. The order of dismissal did not prevent the petitioners from seeking redressal through the proper channel. In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the amendments in Rule 28 of the West Bengal Excise (Country Spirit) Rules, 2009, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Taxation Tribunal over matters related to tax adjudication and enforcement. The judgment emphasized the importance of approaching the correct forum for redressal of grievances related to tax laws.
|
