2020 (7) TMI 779 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of certain amounts of tax deposited - seeking abatement of all other proceedings pending before different authorities in respect of certain transactions - Section 57 of the UP VAT Act - HELD THAT - The submission that the writ would avoid multiplicity of proceedings is of no avail as all proceedings initiated against the petitioner arise from separate cause of actions and require to be considered and decided independently whereupon the petitioner may avail the statutory remedies against the orders so passed therein. The reliance placed on certain interim orders of this Court passed in petitions of other parties is of no consequence as the challenge therein were in respect of certain notices whereas in the present case after notices, assessment order and even an order in appeal has been passed. Thus, this case is distinguishable on facts from the orders cited. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate order, refund of tax amounts, abatement of proceedings in light of Resolution Plan approved by NCLT, failure to avail second appeal remedy, multiplicity of proceedings, reliance on interim orders of other parties.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) regarding the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under the UP VAT Act. Simultaneously, the petitioner sought a refund of certain tax amounts and a declaration that ongoing proceedings related to specific transactions should be considered abated in accordance with the Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioner did not utilize the option of filing a second appeal before the Commissioner Tax Tribunal under Section 57 of the UP VAT Act, choosing instead to directly approach the High Court, arguing that certain findings were contrary to the NCLT-approved Resolution Plan.

The court noted that the issue of alleged inconsistency with the Resolution Plan had already been addressed by both the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the court opined that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of a second appeal available under the law rather than directly approaching the High Court. Regarding the refund of tax amounts, the court advised the petitioner to apply to the relevant authorities for the same, emphasizing that such applications should be processed in accordance with the law.

The court rejected the argument that filing a writ petition would prevent multiple proceedings, stating that each proceeding initiated against the petitioner stemmed from distinct causes of action and should be independently assessed and decided upon. The court also dismissed the significance of relying on interim orders from other cases, highlighting that the present case involved assessment orders and appeals, distinguishing it from the cited orders. Consequently, the court decided not to entertain the petition at that stage and dismissed it on the basis of the availability of alternative remedies.

In conclusion, the court's judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies, advised proper application for refunds, and clarified the need for separate consideration of each proceeding based on its individual merits. The court's decision was grounded in the principle of avoiding premature intervention and upholding the statutory framework for addressing legal issues.