2021 (8) TMI 252 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking restraint from raising demands or from taking coercive action for enforcing such demands against the petitioner - HELD THAT - Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within one week thereafter - List this case along with Writ Petition No. 29277 (MB) of 2016 in the 1st week of September, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 29.6.2021 regarding demands on goods transacted through E-Commerce for personal use and consumption.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the order dated 29.6.2021 passed by the opposite party no. 3, seeking to restrain them from raising demands or taking coercive action against the petitioner regarding goods transacted through E-Commerce for personal use. The petitioner's counsel argues that a previous interim order in a similar case allowed E-Commerce trading with a bank guarantee. The petitioner asserts that the bank guarantee has already been submitted and should not be required again. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties does not oppose this position and requests time to file a counter affidavit. The court grants four weeks for this purpose and allows the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter. The case is scheduled to be listed along with another related petition in the 1st week of September 2021. As an interim measure, the court allows the petitioner to continue trading through E-Commerce and online purchase systems, provided a bank guarantee is furnished to secure the state's interest if not already submitted.

This judgment addresses the issue of demands on goods transacted through E-Commerce for personal use and consumption. The petitioner challenges an order and seeks to prevent the opposite parties from enforcing demands coercively. The court refers to a previous case where E-Commerce trading was allowed with a bank guarantee. The petitioner asserts that the required bank guarantee has already been submitted, and the opposite parties do not contest this claim. Consequently, the court grants time for the opposite parties to file a counter affidavit and permits the petitioner to submit a rejoinder affidavit. An interim measure allows the petitioner to continue E-Commerce trading, subject to furnishing a bank guarantee to secure the state's interest, if not already provided. The case is scheduled for further proceedings in September 2021, to be heard alongside another related petition.