2013 (12) TMI 567 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of Writ Petition Alternate redressal available Duty liability on labour charges and consumables used in the job work of printing - Held that - The petitioner has filed invoice wise statement for labour receipt and furnished delivery challan to show that paper or board supplied by the customer for doing labour works - when certain charges are not leviable it is for the authority concerned to assess the tax in accordance with law - While doing so if there is any discrepancy in the order it is incumbent on the petitioner to go before the appellate forum for redressal of such grievance and for consideration of such question which arises for consideration - Without doing so the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that there is a levy without jurisdiction. When there is an effective efficacious alternate remedy available to the parties it is for them to exhaust such a remedy in accordance with law and they can agitate every merit of the case before such a forum - the petitioner s approach of without exhausting the appellate remedy would definitely deprive the statutory right conferred on the parties - the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into by in the writ petition when there is an effective statutory remedy Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether labour charges and consumables used in printing job work are liable to tax.
2. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable without exhausting alternate remedies.
3. Assessment of deemed resale turnover for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2005-2006.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner argued that labour charges and consumables used in printing job work should not be taxed, citing a precedent. The Assessing Officer, however, included these in the assessment. The Court noted that discrepancies should be addressed through the appellate forum before resorting to a writ petition. The petitioner's failure to exhaust the available remedy led to the rejection of the writ petition.

2. The respondent contended that the petitioner should have pursued alternate remedies before approaching the Court under Article 226. The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies, stating that the appellate authority must consider all aspects of the case and rectify any errors made by the original authority. Failing to utilize the appellate remedy would deprive parties of their statutory rights.

3. The Assistant Commissioner's order for the assessment year 2005-2006 highlighted that the labour works involved transfer of materials, leading to a deemed resale turnover. Similarly, for the assessment year 2003-2004, the dealer had purchased various materials locally but did not disclose the resultant deemed resale turnover for assessment. The Court emphasized that such discrepancies should be addressed through the appellate process rather than directly through a writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court rejected the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust the available statutory remedy. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within fifteen days from receiving the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits and dispose of it in accordance with the law, without strictly adhering to the limitation period if the appeal is otherwise in order.