2019 (6) TMI 358 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Production of books of accounts and other documents - conclusion of proceedings under Section 9 (2) of the CST Act read with Section 72 (2) of the KVAT Act - primary challenge of the petitioner is that no incriminating documents relied upon by the respondent authorities have been made available to the petitioner and as such, the order impugned are passed without jurisdiction - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner having suffered an order from the appellate authority is before this court on the grounds as aforesaid. There is no legal impediment for the petitioner to urge all these grounds before the appellate tribunal, the machinery provided under the statute. Circumventing the same, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction merely on the alleged ground that no documents are furnished to the petitioner. It is also significant to note that the statement of objections has been filed by the revenue and the documents at Annexures-R1 and R2 are placed along with the statement of objections. In such circumstances, the challenge made by the petitioner on the ground of non furnishing of the documents requires to be negated. Moreover, the disputed facts involved in the petition cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal available under the KVAT Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders under KVAT Act and CST Act, Non-furnishing of incriminating material, Jurisdiction and natural justice, Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders under the KVAT Act and CST Act, contending that incriminating material was not provided despite requests, leading to unjust assessment. The petitioner appealed under the KVAT Act, but it was dismissed. The main argument was the lack of incriminating documents and the adverse decision based on them. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under the KVAT Act.

The court considered both sides' submissions and reviewed the case records. The primary issue raised by the petitioner was the non-disclosure of incriminating documents by the authorities, leading to orders passed without jurisdiction and against natural justice principles. The court noted that the petitioner could have raised these grounds before the appellate tribunal under the statute but chose to file a writ petition directly. The revenue authorities claimed to have provided relevant documents to the petitioner, refuting the allegation of non-disclosure. The court emphasized that disputed facts could not be resolved under writ jurisdiction.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner had the option to appeal before the tribunal but opted for the writ petition. As the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy, the court dismissed the writ petition. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal under the KVAT Act within four weeks, ensuring the appeal would be considered on its merits without limitation objections. The court concluded by dismissing the writ petition with the mentioned directions.

In summary, the court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy available under the KVAT Act, despite the petitioner's argument regarding non-disclosure of incriminating documents by the authorities. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed appeal process and granted the petitioner the opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal within a specified timeframe.