9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 970 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the TNSTAT, but has instead filed petition challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner beyond the maximum limitation period of 120 days - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. The Writ Petition challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner has not been filed within the maximum limitation period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The Petitioner has not shown any infirmity in the Garnishee Order No. TIN 33510640011 dated 07.10.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner to Standard Chartered Bank for the recovery of the tax liability determined against the Petitioner - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Determination of liability under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 2008-2009 and 2013-2014. 2. Appeal against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the CST Act. 3. Disposal of appeals by the Joint Commissioner regarding penalty levied under the CST Act. 4. Issuance of Garnishee Order to recover tax liability. 5. Filing of writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. 6. Failure to prefer appeal before the Tamil Nadu Service Tax Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period. 7. Legal position regarding the entertainment of writ petitions by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Merger of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner with the common order passed by the Joint Commissioner. 9. Challenge of the Garnishee Order issued by the Deputy Commissioner to recover tax liability. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the determination of liability under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 2008-2009 and 2013-2014. The Deputy Commissioner had determined the liability for the Petitioner, who appealed against these orders before the Joint Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner disposed of the appeals, upholding the penalty levied by the Deputy Commissioner but modifying the quantum of the penalty to 100% of the tax due to meet the ends of justice. 2. The Petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner through writ petitions. The High Court noted that the Petitioner failed to prefer an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Service Tax Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period, which led to the dismissal of the writ petitions challenging the orders. 3. The issuance of Garnishee Order to recover tax liability was also a key issue in the judgment. The Garnishee Order was issued to Standard Chartered Bank, where the Petitioner held banking accounts. The High Court found no infirmity in the Garnishee Order issued by the Deputy Commissioner for the recovery of tax liability. 4. The legal position regarding the entertainment of writ petitions by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was discussed. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the High Court emphasized that writ petitions assailing orders not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority should not be entertained. 5. The judgment highlighted the merger of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner with the common order passed by the Joint Commissioner. As a result, the High Court concluded that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner could not be independently challenged, and the writ petitions challenging the Joint Commissioner's order were dismissed. 6. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions as they could not be entertained due to the failure to prefer an appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority within the prescribed period. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
