Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 839 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Jurisdiction of assessing authority under Central Sales Tax - Bogus C Forms - entire turnover of the petitioner was assessed to tax at 12.5% - we refrain from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to entertain these Writ Petitions which have been filed questioning the very same assessment orders of the 1st respondent dated 05.11.2012 which were under challenge in W.P. No.9175, 9176 and 9168 of 2013. As filing of these Writ Petitions is an abuse of process of Court, they are dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹ 25,000/-, in each of these three Writ Petitions, which the petitioner shall pay to the State Government within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner can file writ petitions questioning the same assessment orders after withdrawing earlier writ petitions with liberty to file statutory appeals. 2. Whether the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. Whether the impugned assessment orders dated 05.11.2012 are invalid. 4. Whether the filing of the present writ petitions constitutes an abuse of process of court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Can writ petitions be filed questioning the same assessment orders dated 05.11.2012, which were under challenge in the earlier writ petitions, when the earlier writ petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file statutory appeals, and not to file writ petitions afresh? The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to file a second writ petition questioning the same assessment orders dated 05.11.2012, which were under challenge in the earlier writ petitions. The petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petitions with liberty to pursue statutory appeals, not to file writ petitions afresh. The court emphasized that allowing a second writ petition would encourage bench-hunting tactics and abuse of the judicial process. The principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII CPC, which discourages the filing of fresh suits after withdrawal without permission, was extended to writ petitions in the interest of justice and public policy. II. Does the first respondent lack jurisdiction, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to pass the impugned orders of assessment dated 05.11.2012? The court clarified that the assessment orders were passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and not under the A.P. VAT Act. The provisions of the A.P. VAT Act and the judgment in Balaji Flour Mills, Chittoor, which require specific authorization for assessment, do not apply to assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act. The first respondent, as an assessing authority under the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, had the jurisdiction to pass the assessment orders. Therefore, the contention that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction was not tenable. III. The impugned assessment orders dated 05.11.2012 do not bear the brand of invalidity on their forehead: The court held that the assessment orders do not bear the brand of invalidity on their forehead. Even if an order is void or voidable, it remains effective until it is quashed or otherwise set aside by a court. The petitioner must approach the court to seek such a declaration. The court emphasized that it would not undertake a detailed examination of the applicability of Rule 59 of the A.P. VAT Rules to assessments under the CST Act, as the institution of the writ petitions was deemed an abuse of the process of the court. IV. Abuse of process of court: The court found that the petitioner had engaged in an abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner had filed the present writ petitions after withdrawing the earlier writ petitions, which contained serious allegations of fabrication and forgery. The affidavits filed in support of the present writ petitions were silent on these allegations, and no explanation was provided. The court emphasized the need to maintain the sanctity and solemnity of judicial proceedings and held that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands. The court reiterated that a second writ petition for the same relief is an abuse of the process of the court. Conclusion: The court refrained from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petitions. The filing of the writ petitions was deemed an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- each, payable to the State Government within four weeks. All pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
|