9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 398 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxChallenge to order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 52 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - period w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 - HELD THAT - The petitioner, after receipt of notice dated 22.03.2017 issued under Section 52 of the M.P. VAT Act, appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer and submitted an explanation which was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 29,76,757/-, against the said order, the petitioner neither preferred the Commercial Tax Officer nor before the Appellate Board and raised the issue of limitation. Once the petitioner has preferred the first appeal, therefore, the petitioner can also prefer VATA before this Court. The petitioner submits that since the petitioner did not raise the issue of limitation before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the petitioner is precluded from raising this issue in VATA. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT has held that no writ lies if the efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and subsequent appeal process. Applicability of penalty under Section 52 of the Act. Jurisdiction of the High Court in the present writ petition. Analysis: The petitioner, a private company engaged in manufacturing and sale of corrugated boxes and sheets, challenged an assessment order under the M.P. VAT Act for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. The initial assessment resulted in additional demand, leading to subsequent appeals and re-assessment by the Assessing Officer. A notice was issued under Section 52 of the Act regarding incorrect credit, culminating in a penalty imposition of Rs. 29,76,757. The petitioner appealed to various authorities, including the Appellate Authority and the Commercial Tax Appellate Board, which were all dismissed, prompting the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the order under Section 52 of the M.P. VAT Act was illegal and without jurisdiction due to the proceedings not being completed within one calendar year. The petitioner relied on various judgments to support this argument. However, the respondents argued that the petitioner had the option to file a Value Added Tax Appeal (VATA) against the Appellate Authority's order, making the writ petition not maintainable. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not raise the issue of limitation before the First Appellate Authority, which could have been addressed in a VATA. The court cited the case law of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Limited v/s Union of India, emphasizing that if a statutory appeal remedy is available, a writ may not be maintainable. Additionally, under Section 53 (6)(a) & (6)(b) of the M.P. VAT Act, the High Court may determine issues not addressed by the Appellate Board or those wrongly determined by it, besides legal questions of law. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of lack of maintainability due to the availability of an efficacious remedy in the form of a VATA. The court's decision was based on the principle that when a statutory appeal process exists, seeking a writ may not be the appropriate course of action.
|
