9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 197 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTax on entry of goods into the local area from outside the local area - Assessment under U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 being contested as barred by time - Held that - The statutory requirement is the date of receipt of the order by the Assessing Authority concerned and not mere knowledge of the order. The petitioner could not refer any iota of evidence to show on what date the judgment of writ court was received by the Assessing Authority. He wants this Court to draw inference about the date of the service of judgment which is not possible. What it mean to say is that complicated and disputed question of fact with regard to the date of communication of the judgment of Writ Court is involved. This can more properly be examined and addressed by the authority having the complete record including the assessment file and the receipt register etc. As decided in Satyawati Tandon case 2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT that before exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should have recorded as to whether adjudication of writ petition involves any complicated and disputed question of fact and whether they can satisfactorily be resolved. On the facts of the present case,it is not in a position to arrive at a definite conclusion or finding in terms of section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act to uphold the submission of the petitioner. Having regard view of the fact that the disputed questions of fact are involved and statutory forum by way of appeal is available to the petitioner, thus court declines to interfere in the present writ petition. When the question of limitation is dependent upon the adjudication of certain facts, then, it cannot be said that it is related to the jurisdiction of the authority or is a jurisdictional issue, as in the present case. The factual aspect of the case should be decided by the statutory forum first, in such matters. Writ petition dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment order framed by the Assessing Authority under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 2. Constitutional validity of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000. 3. Limitation period for assessment proceedings under section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 4. Maintainability of the writ petition in view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment Order Framed by the Assessing Authority: The petitioner challenged the assessment order framed by the Assessing Authority under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, claiming it was barred by time. The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings should be considered time-barred in accordance with section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Assessing Authority, however, assumed that the limitation period commenced from the date of rejection of the restoration application, which the petitioner contended was incorrect. 2. Constitutional Validity of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000: The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000. This legislation levied tax on the entry of goods into the local area from outside the local area. The Division Bench in Indian Oil Corporation and others Vs. State of U.P. and others upheld the constitutional validity of the legislation. The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed on December 23, 2011, and the subsequent application to restore the writ petition was dismissed on April 6, 2012. 3. Limitation Period for Assessment Proceedings: The petitioner argued that the limitation period should commence from the date of communication of the dismissal order of the writ petition to the concerned authority, not from the date of rejection of the restoration application. The assessment order did not provide a finding on when the information regarding the dismissal of the writ petition was received by the Assessing Authority, leading to a dispute on the commencement of the limitation period. Section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act states that the limitation period begins from the date the order vacating the stay is communicated to the authority concerned. The court found that the statutory requirement is the date of receipt of the order by the Assessing Authority, not mere knowledge of the order. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: A preliminary question was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and erroneous, thus justifying the writ petition. However, the court considered whether the adjudication of the writ petition involved complicated and disputed questions of fact, which could be better examined by the authority with access to the complete record. The court referred to precedents, including the case of Satyawati Tandon and the decision in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which emphasized that where a statute provides a special remedy, that remedy must be followed. The court concluded that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy and the involvement of disputed questions of fact. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. The court emphasized that in fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an assessment order is appealable and when disputed questions of fact are involved. The petitioner was advised to seek redress through the statutory appeal process provided under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
|
