9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 798 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSection 7 - Garnishee Order - Demand of Differential amount - revision petition and also the stay petition are pending before the first respondent - in another case, in revision application the matter was remanded back and there was no notice has been issued to the petitioner nor any fresh assessment order was passed as directed by first respondent. - Held that - disputing the differential amount in the writ petitions, the petitioner has inter alia raised many grounds. In respect of W.P.(T) No. 1200 of 2014, it is stated by the counsel appearing for the respondents that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner is pending and the revision petition in respect of W.P.(T) No. 1183 of 2014 has finally been disposed of. If that is so, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy as provided under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Since there is an effective statutory remedy available to the petitioner, we do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petitions. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Senior Manager (Finance), BHEL, Bokaro Thermal Power Station is present in the Court and the Senior counsel on instruction submitted that the petitioner has sufficient funds with the DVC and the statement is recorded. Having regard to the submissions of the petitioner that the petitioner s source of finance is only DVC and consequent to the garnishee order issued to the DVC, the petitioner which is a public sector undertaking is not in a position to make day to day payment of salary, statutory liability and other legal obligations and keeping in view the interest of the petitioner a public sector undertaking and also the employees, we are inclined to grant interim stay of the garnishee order on conditions stated hereunder. Accordingly, the common garnishee order dated 06.03.2014 in respect of the financial year 2007-08 in W.P.(T) No. 1183 of 2014 and 2009-10 in W.P.(T) No. 1200 of 2014 is ordered to be kept in abeyance for four months.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to garnishee order dated 06.03.2014 under Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 in two writ petitions. 2. Quashing of garnishee order issued by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 3. Assessment orders for the financial years 2007-08 and 2009-10 under JVAT Act, 2005. 4. Pending revision petitions and stay petitions before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 5. Impact of garnishee orders on petitioner's financial operations. 6. Disposal of revision petitions and statutory remedies available to the petitioner. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to Garnishee Order The judgment addresses the challenge to a common garnishee order issued under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 in two writ petitions. The petitioners sought to quash the garnishee orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, alleging coercive recovery affecting their financial operations. Issue 2: Assessment Orders Assessment orders for the financial years 2007-08 and 2009-10 were passed, leading to disputes over the tax amounts assessed. The petitioners raised objections to the reassessment orders and filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, seeking redressal. Issue 3: Pending Revision Petitions The judgment highlights the pendency of revision petitions and stay petitions before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioners expressed grievances over the delay in decision-making and the issuance of garnishee orders during the pendency of these petitions. Issue 4: Impact on Financial Operations The petitioners, being public sector undertakings, faced financial constraints due to garnishee orders affecting their ability to meet day-to-day financial obligations, including salary payments and statutory liabilities. The judgment emphasized the need to balance coercive recovery measures with the operational needs of the petitioners. Issue 5: Disposal of Revision Petitions The judgment directed the petitioners to pursue their revision petitions diligently and cooperate in the proceedings. It also outlined specific directions for payment of a portion of the disputed tax amount and instructed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to dispose of the pending revision petitions promptly. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the legal challenges posed by garnishee orders, assessment disputes, and the need for timely resolution of revision petitions to ensure fair treatment of the petitioners and uphold the principles of natural justice in tax matters under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
|
