9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 861 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecall Petition - validity of sale notices - HELD THAT - The assessment order itself attained its finality and writ petition, which was filed challenging the assessment order, was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2016 itself, there is no reason to interfere with the sale notices only on the plea that a recall petition was filed by the petitioner for recalling of order of Writ Court dated 19.10.2016, which was filed on 05.03.2019. The said recall petition itself reflects that it was verified on 07.05.2018. The law is settled that one who slumbers over his right may not claim any equity also. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to sale notices issued against assessment order, Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Recall petition against assessment order, Statutory remedy under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Validity of sale notices, Principle of limitation, Finality of assessment order, Revenue recovery under Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged sale notices issued against an assessment order by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that a recall petition was pending for an order dated 19.10.2016 passed in a previous writ petition against the assessment order under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. It was argued that until the recall petition was disposed of, the respondents were not authorized to proceed with the sale process or take coercive steps. During arguments, it was highlighted that the assessment order dated 31.07.2016 was challenged through a writ petition, which was later withdrawn on 19.10.2016. Subsequently, a recall petition was filed by the petitioner, but it remained pending. The respondents proceeded with penalty notices and finally issued sale notices, leading to the current challenge. The petitioner sought a stay on the sale proceedings until the recall petition was decided. The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes opposed the petition, stating that the recall petition filed in 2019 for an order from 2016 was not sustainable due to the principle of limitation. It was argued that all necessary steps had been taken after the dismissal of the original writ petition, including the issuance of penalty orders and notices for revenue recovery. The respondents contended that the recall petition seemed to be a mere imagination of the petitioner and should not affect the ongoing sale process. The Court examined the records and found that the assessment order had been passed in 2016, and the writ petition challenging it was withdrawn the same year. The recall petition, filed much later in 2019, was found to be verified in 2018, raising questions about its validity. Additionally, penalty notices and orders had been issued, leading to revenue recovery actions under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act. The Court concluded that since the assessment order had attained finality and the original writ petition was dismissed in 2016, there was no basis to interfere with the sale notices based on the pending recall petition. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that delayed actions like filing a recall petition after a significant period do not warrant equitable relief. The Court ruled that there were no grounds to entertain the petition, and no costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions in the case were also closed as a result of the judgment.
|
