9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 949 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction - power to revise - whether the writ court can revise the order of this court passed under section 11 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 which provides Revision by High Court in special cases? Held that - the judgment and order dated 13.7.2017 passed by this court in Trade Tax Revision No. 67 of 1994 cannot be annulled or reviewed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the issue in question has been dealt, considered and decided by this Court in Trade Tax Revision against the petitioner. The writ court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of this court passed in Trade Tax Revision. The petitioner has admittedly raised the issue raised herein before the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax, 1948. Admittedly, feeling aggrieved by order of Sales Tax Tribunal, the Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was filed before this Court bearing Trade Tax Revision No. 67 of 1994 which has finally been decided vide judgment and order dated 13.7.2017. The efficacious and appropriate remedy is not the writ petition but the order of the Trade Tax Revision could have been assailed before the Hon ble Apex Court, if the petitioner so advised. The petitioner may, therefore, approach the Hon ble Apex Court, if so advised but it cannot re-agitate the same issue before the writ court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the writ court can revise the order passed under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. Liability of purchase tax on the petitioner in absence of Form III-C-1. 3. Applicability and constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. 4. Validity of the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax. Detailed Analysis: 1. Revising the Order Under Section 11 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948: The primary issue was whether the writ court could revise an order passed under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The court observed that the petitioner had already raised the issue before the Sales Tax Tribunal and subsequently filed a Trade Tax Revision before the High Court, which was decided on 13.07.2017. The court emphasized that the writ court cannot sit in appeal over its judgment passed in Trade Tax Revision. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner would have been to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court rather than filing a writ petition under Article 226. 2. Liability of Purchase Tax in Absence of Form III-C-1: The court noted that the petitioner did not submit Form III-C-1, which led to the imposition of purchase tax on the wheat worth ?54,87,61,701.52. Section 3-D(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act stipulates that in the absence of Form III-C-1, the Revenue has the right to levy tax. The court upheld this provision, stating that the liability of tax has been correctly levied upon the petitioner due to the non-submission of the required form. 3. Applicability and Constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 3-D(1): The petitioner argued that the liability for payment of purchase tax should be fixed on the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The court referred to previous judgments, including the High Court's decision in Re: Food Corporation of India vs. C.S.T. and the Hon'ble Apex Court's affirmation of the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the constitutionality of Explanation II to Section 3-D(1), which deems the purchase by FCI as the first purchase for tax purposes. The court reiterated that the petitioner's argument fails in light of these judgments, and the constitutionality of Explanation II remains valid. 4. Validity of the Demand Notice Issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax: The petitioner challenged the demand notice dated 11.09.2017, which demanded ?2,09,98,112 with interest as tax liabilities. The court found that this notice was issued following the High Court's order dated 13.07.2017, which had already decided the issue against the petitioner. The court stated that the petitioner cannot re-agitate the same issue before the writ court. The appropriate course of action would have been to challenge the order before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Conclusion: The court concluded that the writ petition is devoid of merits and dismissed it. The judgment emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioner had already been decided by the High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The writ court cannot annul or review its previous judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was advised to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court if they wished to challenge the order further. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
