2019 (7) TMI 2039 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative efficacious remedy to file a first appeal under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Recovery of arrears of land revenue - Interpretation of Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - HELD THAT - The appellant-writ petitioner s contention is that the pre-condition of the deposit of the amount, for a suit to be filed, falls foul of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India others Etc. Etc, 2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT . In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India others Etc. Etc the constitutional validity of the SERFASI Act, 2002, more particularly the provisions contained under Sections 13,15,17 and 34 of the Act, were under challenge. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has not put forth any challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. His prayer, in the writ petition, is confined only to a challenge to the impugned notice of recovery issued by the respondents. In examining the constitutionally of a statue, it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the need of the people, and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience, and that the laws are enacted which are considered to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted. Presumption is, therefore, in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment. The remedy under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is not available to the petitioner to question the impugned recovery citation, he has, admittedly, the remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. The obligation cast by the said provision to pay the entire amount would not, in the absence of a challenge to its Constitutional validity, require us to discharge the appellant-writ petitioner of this obligation. The special appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to recovery notice under Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Applicability of alternative remedy under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
3. Validity of recovery certificate issued for arrears of land revenue.
4. Interpretation of Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
5. Constitutional validity of Section 287-A of the 1950 Act.
6. Presumption of constitutionality of legislative enactments.
7. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act.
8. Discretion of the court in interference with impugned orders under Article 226.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged a recovery notice for arrears of land revenue issued under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 51 of the Act. The appellant argued that Section 51 did not apply as it pertained to assessment orders, not recovery notices. The recovery certificate detailed the amounts due for the years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The appellant, a former director, contested the recovery citing the onerous nature of the remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act, which required depositing the full amount before challenging. The court highlighted the various processes for recovery under Sections 279 and 280 of the 1950 Act.

The appellant contended that the deposit precondition for filing a suit under Section 287-A was unlawful, citing the Mardia Chemicals case. The court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality of statutes and the burden of proof on challengers. Since the appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of Section 287-A, the court declined to assess its validity. The court reiterated the presumption of constitutionality and dismissed reliance on the Mardia Chemicals case. While agreeing that Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act was not applicable for challenging the recovery citation, the court noted the availability of remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. Consequently, the court modified the Single Judge's order, holding that the appellant had an alternative remedy under the 1950 Act and declined interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the Special Appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the availability of the alternative remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act and the court's discretion in interfering with impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.