2019 (9) TMI 1705 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Garnishee notice issued under Section 39 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act 2007 - it is contended that before issuing Garnishee notice to the concerned Bank which is not made as a party in this writ petition the petitioner was not put on notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This writ petition not entertained on the ground raised by the petitioner as if they are entitled to prior notice before issuing Garnishee notice. It is not in dispute that the order of assessment dated 14.09.2018 was already passed and therefore if the petitioner is aggrieved against the said order they have to work out their remedy by challenging the said order before appropriate forum in the manner known to law. Without doing so the petitioner has come forward to challenge the consequential Garnishee notice which in my considered view cannot be entertained as a proper course of action. The petitioner is not entitled to prior notice before issuing Garnishee notice under Section 39 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act 2007 - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Garnishee notice under Section 39 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 without prior notice to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the Garnishee notice issued under Section 39 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 without prior notice to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the lack of notice violated the principles of natural justice. On the contrary, the respondents, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, contended that an assessment order had been passed against the petitioner on 14.09.2018, which had not been challenged. Therefore, the tax liability was being recovered through the Garnishee notice. The court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the assessment order and stated that if aggrieved, the petitioner should have challenged the order before the appropriate forum as per the law. The court held that challenging the Garnishee notice without challenging the assessment order was not the proper course of action. The court also ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to prior notice before the issuance of a Garnishee notice under Section 39 of the Act.

The court, after hearing both sides, refused to entertain the writ petition on the grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of prior notice before the Garnishee notice. The court emphasized that since the assessment order had already been passed, the petitioner should have challenged it through the appropriate legal channels. The court concluded that challenging the Garnishee notice without addressing the assessment order was not acceptable. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to prior notice before the issuance of the Garnishee notice under Section 39 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The judgment was delivered on 10.09.2019, and no costs were awarded.