9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 5 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxViolation of the provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - inclusion of value of land in taxable turnover of builders/developers selling flats/apartments/units and paying VAT under lumpsum scheme - Held that - It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the impugned order dated 14.8.2015 passed by respondent No.3 is an appealable order. Accordingly, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain the writ petitions at this stage. - Writ petition not maintainable - the writ petitions are disposed of by relegating the petitioner(s) to the alternative remedy of appeal.
Issues Involved:
Petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash VAT imposition on land value in works contract, challenge to circulars and provisions of VAT Act, ultra vires declaration sought. Analysis: The petitioner, a developer, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging the imposition of Value Added Tax (VAT) on the value of land transferred in works contract, seeking to quash the order dated 14.8.2015 and circulars dated 7.5.2013, 4.6.2013, and 10.2.2014 issued by the respondents. The petitioner contended that including the value of land in taxable turnover for VAT under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and related Rules was ultra vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that such inclusion violated Article 246 of the Constitution read with Schedule VII, List II, Entry 54. The petitioner also highlighted assessment orders and notices received for various assessment years, challenging the imposition of VAT on land value. The High Court noted that the impugned order dated 14.8.2015 was appealable, as acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the writ petitions at that stage. The Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal against the order. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the bunch of petitions by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal due to the appealable nature of the impugned order. The Court refrained from entertaining the writ petitions at that stage, emphasizing the availability of an alternative legal recourse for the petitioner.
|
