2023 (9) TMI 860 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Section 65 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 1969 - HELD THAT - In view of the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 65 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 1969, the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy to canvass its grievances before the Tribunal. Hence, it is opined that the petitioners, if relegated to the Tribunal for adjudication of its grievances, the ends of justice would be met with. It is observed that as and when the petitioners approach to the Tribunal by way of an appeal, the issue of pre-deposit of the amount is left open and if any application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit is made by the petitioners, the Tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioners challenged orders passed by various tax authorities. The main issues were the validity of the assessment order, limitation period, and the availability of alternative remedy u/s 65(2) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 1969.

Validity of Assessment Order:
The petitioner company, engaged in manufacturing polymer plastic bags, was subject to a search operation due to alleged non-payment of taxes collected in bills. The Assessing Officer issued a common notice of assessment for multiple years and passed the assessment order on 31.03.2007. The petitioner appealed this order, which was set aside and remanded by the First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority. The final order restored the assessment order and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioners contended that the assessment order was beyond the time limit provided u/s 42(1)(a) of the Act.

Availability of Alternative Remedy u/s 65(2) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 1969:
The respondent Authority argued that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the order passed by the First Appellate Authority under Section 65 of the Act. The Assistant Government Pleader highlighted Section 65(2), which allows for a second appeal to either the Commissioner or the Tribunal. The Court found that the petitioners could approach the Tribunal for adjudication of their grievances, and justice would be served by utilizing this alternative remedy. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all contentions open for future adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the petition, emphasizing that the petitioners could seek redressal through the Tribunal as per Section 65(2) of the Act. The issue of pre-deposit of the amount was left open for consideration by the Tribunal if the petitioners choose to appeal. The Court refrained from making any judgment on the case's merits, maintaining neutrality on the contentions raised by both parties.