2014 (8) TMI 662 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment on the value of land, External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC), Licence fee, Processing fee etc - Held that - VAT is sought to be imposed on the items other than the goods, which is not legally tenable. It was argued that in such circumstances, the assessment order is totally without jurisdiction and the alternative remedy of appeal would not be effective remedy. - counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish the requisite number of copies of the paperbook to the learned State counsel during the course of the day.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for amendment of memo of parties under Section 151 of CPC.
2. Imposition of VAT on items other than goods in an assessment order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application for the amendment of the memo of parties under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The applicant sought to correct the description of respondent No.3 from "Excise & Taxation Officer cum-Assessing Authority" to "Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority." The court allowed the application after considering the affidavit in support of the request and directed the amended memo of parties to be filed and recorded appropriately. Consequently, the case management was disposed of, indicating the completion of this procedural aspect.

2. In relation to CWP No. 7720 of 2014, the petitioner's counsel raised concerns regarding an assessment by respondent No. 3 where Value Added Tax (VAT) was allegedly imposed on various charges such as land value, External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC), License fee, and Processing fee, in addition to goods. The petitioner argued that this imposition of VAT on non-goods items was legally untenable, rendering the assessment order (Annexure P-1) jurisdictionally flawed. The court directed a notice of motion to be issued to the respondents, and the State counsel accepted the notice, requesting time to file replies. The petitioner was also instructed to provide copies of the paperbook to the State counsel. The matter was adjourned to a specified date, with a directive to refrain from coercive recovery measures against the petitioner until the next hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the procedural aspect of amending the memo of parties and delves into the substantive issue of the legality of imposing VAT on non-goods items in an assessment order, highlighting the jurisdictional concerns raised by the petitioner. The court's directions regarding notice to respondents, submission of documents, and the adjournment of the case demonstrate a systematic approach to addressing the legal complexities involved in the matter.