2016 (6) TMI 141 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking release of seized goods - Form 16, contemplated under Section 48 of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Uttarakhand VAT Rules, 2005, was not accompanying the goods - appellant/writ petitioner is not a registered dealer, as he is not doing any intra-State sale in the State of Uttarakhand - Held that - when there is a disputed question of fact, ordinarily, the relegating of a party to an alternate forum is not to be faulted. In such circumstances, particularly when a learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion to relegate a party to alternate forum, the appellate court will be slow to interfere. In this case, another important development is not to be overlooked. Apart from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this court also had passed orders, the final outcome of which was that the appellate Tribunal has become fully functional. Therefore, we would see no reason why we should interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to seizer order under Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Dispute over the applicability of Form 16 under Section 48 of the Act and Rule 30 of the Uttarakhand VAT Rules, 2005.
3. Appeal against the Single Judge's decision to relegate the appellant to approach the Tribunal.
4. Disagreement over the interception of the vehicle without accompanying sale bills.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a carrier, challenged the seizer order of goods subjected to tax under the CST while being transported. The appellant submitted a reply but was asked to deposit a security amount for release. After filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, the matter was taken to the High Court due to alleged non-functionality of the appellate Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the show-cause reason regarding the absence of Form 16 under Section 48 of the Act and Rule 30 of the Rules was not applicable to them. They contended that as a non-registered dealer not engaged in intra-State sales in Uttarakhand, the provisions did not bind them, citing the proviso to Section 48 and the requirements of Rule 30.

3. The State's representative highlighted the interception of the vehicle without accompanying sale bills, a point disputed by the appellant. The Court acknowledged this discrepancy but refrained from making a definitive judgment on the issue, emphasizing the discretion of the Single Judge in relegating parties to alternate forums for resolution.

4. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision and emphasizing the functionality of the appellate Tribunal. The Court maintained that interference was unwarranted, leaving all contentions open for the Tribunal to decide on merit independently. The judgment preserved the appellant's rights for a fair consideration by the Tribunal without any influence from the High Court's decision.