2021 (11) TMI 1031 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy or not - Levy of tax and penalty - detention of vehicles - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that no further appellate forum is now available to the petitioners against the impugned order of the appellate authority and the petitioners have no forum for remedy except this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the fact that no remedy is available to the petitioners this writ petition is admitted on condition that petitioners will deposit with the respondent concerned further 20 per cent of the disputed amount of tax within two weeks from date and if such deposit is made respondent concerned shall release the seized vehicles in question along with goods within three days from making such deposit subject to compliance of formalities. List this matter for final hearing after five weeks.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to impugned order of appellate authority, confirmation of tax and penalty imposition, detention of vehicles by SGST authority, availability of further appellate forum, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, condition for entertaining writ petition, deposit of disputed tax amount, release of seized vehicles, requirement for affidavits, timeline for filing affidavits, final hearing schedule, preparation of written notes of arguments.

Analysis:

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 15th September, 2021, which confirmed the tax imposition of ?26,45,299/- and penalty of ?37,84,829/- by the adjudicating authority on 6th May, 2021. They further contested the detention of vehicles by the SGST authority. It is acknowledged that no further appellate forum is available to the petitioners against the appellate authority's order, leaving the High Court as the only remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal. They are now willing to pay an additional 20% of the balance amount if a tribunal had been available against the appellate order. The court admitted the writ petition on the condition that the petitioners must deposit a further 20% of the disputed tax amount with the concerned respondent within two weeks. Upon such deposit, the respondent is directed to release the seized vehicles along with goods within three days, subject to compliance with formalities.

Regarding the main dispute of tax and penalty imposition, the court stated that it cannot be adjudicated without calling for affidavits from the respondents. The respondents are required to file an affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks from the date of the order, and the petitioners must file a reply, if any, within one week thereafter. The matter is scheduled for final hearing after five weeks, during which the parties must be prepared with short written notes of arguments. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment and the procedural steps to be followed in the legal proceedings.