2017 (1) TMI 1614 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Luxury Tax - levy of luxury tax on every Tobacconist under Section 3A of A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 - vires of Section 3A was challenged by the petitioner - Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that SCN issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, who was not the petitioner before the Supreme Court - Other contention of petitioner is that impugned revised show cause notice makes a demand in respect of two entities one falling within the State of Telangana and another falling within the State of Andhra Pradesh, over the second of which the 2nd respondent can have no jurisdiction after the bifurcation of the State w.e.f. 02.06.2014. Held that - It is true that today w.e.f. 31.01.2005, some provisions and w.e.f. 01.04.2005 the other provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 have come into force. But insofar as the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 is concerned, the expression assessing authority is defined in Section 2(b) to mean the assessing authority appointed under Section 4. Section 4 (1) of the said Act empowers the Government by notification to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred and for performing the functions entrusted to him under the Act - thus, without going into the question whether the 2nd respondent is actually the assessing authority under 1987 Act or not, we are of the considered view that if there is an assessing authority, the expression petitioners appearing in paragraph-8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court should be construed to indicate that authority. If he is not the assessing authority, it is always open to the petitioners to raise this objection in their reply to the show cause notice. Bifurcation of the States and one out of the two units, which is indicated in the impugned show cause notice being located in another State - Held that - Admittedly, the show cause notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, date d 07.08.2015, has been challenged separately by way of another writ petition. But it is yet to come up for hearing. Therefore, if the claims of both the Commercial Tax Officers are actually sustainable in law, assuming that they are sustainable, the petitioner can always raise a valid point that there cannot be overlap of the claims. There cannot be two demands by two different authorities in respect of one liability - the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not appeal to us to entertain the writ petition, especially at the stage of show cause notice, when the Supreme Court has granted liberty to whoever it is to issue show cause notice and proceed further. Therefore, it is found that there is no justification to entertain the writ petition at this stage. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging revised show cause notice under A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a revised show cause notice issued under the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987. The Supreme Court previously struck down Section 3A of the Act as unconstitutional. During the appeals, the Supreme Court ordered appellants to register under the Act and file returns, but not pay the tax. The Supreme Court observed that if luxury tax was collected during this period, it should be paid to the State Governments. Contempt petitions were filed against the petitioner for allegedly disobeying the Supreme Court's observation. Chartered Accountants were appointed to resolve factual disputes. The firm reported that the petitioner had not collected luxury tax for a specific period. The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petitions, permitting show cause notices to be issued to respondents regarding unpaid luxury tax.

Analysis:
The 2nd respondent issued a revised show cause notice to the petitioner, who raised objections related to territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued by an authority not named in the Supreme Court's order and that the notice demanded tax from entities in different states post-bifurcation. The Court interpreted the Supreme Court's order, emphasizing the authority's competence to issue notices. The Court also discussed the jurisdiction issue post-state bifurcation and the applicability of Section 50 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014. The petitioner argued against overlapping tax demands from different authorities.

Analysis:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that challenges to show cause notices are limited, primarily dealing with jurisdiction issues. The Court clarified the interpretation of the Supreme Court's order, emphasizing the authority's competence to issue notices. The Court discussed the bifurcation of states and the applicability of relevant laws. The petitioner's objections to overlapping tax demands were noted, but the Court emphasized that this issue did not affect the jurisdiction of the respondent. The Court directed the petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice and allowed the respondent to proceed in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court's order.