2021 (8) TMI 587 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appropriate Jurisdiction - Demand of sales tax - Department has opined that since the writ petitions pertain to Sales Tax, as per the roster fixed by the Chief Justice, the same ought to be placed before the Division Bench - HELD THAT - In these writ petitions, orders passed by the Chairman, Administrative and Appellate Tribunal, Daman on proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Daman Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005 are under challenge. It is not in dispute that such orders are passed by a quasi-judicial authority on proceedings arising out of a local law - We do not find that the Central Sales Tax Act or the relevant law under which proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and on which the impugned orders have been passed form part of the excepted category of cases in sub-rule (3) of Rule 18. The roster fixed by the Chief Justice requires this Bench to take up Writ Petitions in indirect tax matters under Central Acts and State Acts (including Excise Duty, Customs Duty and Service Tax) . The Deputy Registrar has not referred to Rule 18(3) of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court, in terms whereof the writ petitions under consideration ought to be placed before the learned Single Judge for consideration and disposal. The office report dated June 09, 2021 is, accordingly, overruled.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court in relation to writ petitions arising from the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.
3. Applicability of the roster fixed by the Chief Justice in listing writ petitions before the appropriate bench.

Analysis:
1. The case involved writ petitions arising from the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The State argued that due to the nature of the petitions, they should be listed before a Division Bench. The Single Judge directed the office to verify and place the petitions before the appropriate bench, considering the Act under which the issues arose.

2. Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 was analyzed. It was noted that the rule provides for the placement of writ petitions under Article 226 or applications under Article 227 of the Constitution before a Single Judge. The rule specifies certain exceptions, excluding cases arising from specific laws. The orders challenged in the petitions were passed by a quasi-judicial authority under the Daman & Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005, which is a local law not falling under the exceptions in Rule 18(3).

3. The Court considered the roster fixed by the Chief Justice, which mandates the listing of writ petitions in indirect tax matters under Central Acts and State Acts before a specific bench. However, the Court emphasized that the roster must be read in harmony with the Appellate Side Rules. In this case, since the petitions did not fall under the excepted category in Rule 18(3), the Deputy Registrar's report suggesting placement before the Division Bench was overruled. The parties were directed to mention the petitions before the Single Judge for further consideration and disposal.