2024 (5) TMI 985 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment orders - assessment order challenged on the ground of existence of alternative remedy - extent of labour involved in execution of works contract - levy of purchase tax on the basis of purchases made from unregistered dealers - Processing loss - HELD THAT - It would be evident from the records that the question as to the extent of labour involved in execution of works contract is a question of fact which ought to be demonstrated / proved on the basis of documentary evidence. Secondly, levy of purchase tax on the basis of purchases made from unregistered dealers also gives rise to disputed question of facts. Processing loss is again an aspect, which would require examination of facts of each case. The claim of deduction of TDS requires filing of statutory form, again an exercise which is alien to writ jurisdiction. Thus, there are no reason to interfere with the order relegating the appellant to avail statutory remedy of appeal. The appellate authority is the appropriate authority / forum to examine the above disputed questions of fact. It is trite law that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is neither an appellate or a revisional jurisdiction nor can writ jurisdiction be converted into a Court of appeal. Yet another reason as to why it is found that the order of the learned judge rejecting the writ petitions and granting liberty to file appeal, does not warrant interference is that despite revised notices having been issued by the assessing authority, the appellants have not filed their objections. There are no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The appellant is granted liberty to avail statutory remedy within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment subject to complying with all conditions relating to appeal including pre-deposit, if any. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves challenging assessment orders for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 on the ground of existence of alternative remedy.

Labor Charges Issue:
The appellant, engaged in works contract, claimed excessive labor charges during the assessment years, which were rejected. Only a statutory deduction of 30% was granted due to lack of supporting documents.

Purchase Tax Issue:
Purchase Tax under Section 12 of the TNVAT Act was levied on purchases made from unregistered dealers, leading to a disputed question of facts.

Processing Loss Issue:
The issue of processing loss required examination of facts of each case, indicating another disputed question of facts.

TDS Claim Issue:
The claim of TDS was rejected due to non-filing of statutory form as required under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, highlighting the need for compliance with statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for examining disputed questions of facts. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to address such issues. The judgment cited precedents to support the view that writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into a Court of appeal. Despite revised notices being issued, the appellants failed to file their objections, further justifying the dismissal of the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and granted the appellant liberty to avail statutory remedy within a specified period. The writ appeals were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.