9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 785 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction in the authority passing the order - legality of order questioned - Held that - The present case is not one of lack of jurisdiction but is a case where the petitioners allege improper and illegal exercise of jurisdiction and, therefore, the petitioner must be relegated to availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order as the appellate authority is fully empowered and competent to look into the issues raised by the petitioner, scrutinize the facts and pass an order in accordance with law.
Issues:
Assessment under M.P. VAT Act, 2002 and entry tax for 2008-09 and 2009-10; Jurisdiction of assessing officer; Availability of statutory remedy against order of assessment. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order assessing them to tax under the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 and entry tax for the period 2008-09 and 2009-10, contending the orders were illegal, void, and contrary to a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner, a sub-contractor, argued that they should not have been assessed to tax as they had produced a certificate in Form 3-A as per the M.P. VAT Rules, 2006. The petitioner raised various issues regarding the validity and correctness of the assessing officer's order. The respondents objected to the petition, citing the availability of a statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order. The petitioner acknowledged the existence of an alternative remedy but argued that the court could entertain the petition in cases of lack of jurisdiction in the authority passing the order. After hearing both parties, the court opined that the case did not involve lack of jurisdiction but rather improper and illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The court held that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal, as the appellate authority had the power to address the raised issues and pass an order in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority if desired, in compliance with the law. The petition was disposed of with this liberty provided to the petitioner.
|
