2013 (9) TMI 956 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Power of commissioner - Valuation of goods - Held that - Commissioner have authority under the Act or Rules to constitute a Committee for the purposes of valuation of the goods. The powers can be traced to sub-rule (5) and (6) of Rule 4, 53 (c) and 54 (5), for constituting a Committee of the officers for valuation of the goods - The powers may be exercised by the Joint Commissioner, provided sufficient evidence is produced before him regarding the valuation of the goods. There is no basis to the apprehension that he may not be able to exercise his independent mind to the valuation. In any case there is an appeal provided to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal under Section 57 of the Act - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Authority of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax to constitute a Committee for valuation of goods.
2. Allegation of undervaluation of goods by more than 50%.
3. Availability of alternative remedies to the petitioners.
4. Concern regarding interference with valuation by the Joint Commissioner.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the authority of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax to constitute a Committee for the valuation of goods under Section 48 of the UP Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The petitioners argued that the Commissioner exceeded his powers by appointing a Committee of officers for valuation. However, the court held that the powers to constitute such a Committee can be traced to specific rules under the Act, and thus, the contention of the petitioners was deemed unsubstantiated.

2. The case involved the detention of goods at Aligarh, where it was found that the goods dispatched by the petitioners were undervalued by more than 50% of the prevailing market value. The Assistant Commissioner of the Mobile Squad seized the goods after determining the extent of undervaluation. This issue was crucial in establishing the grounds for the detention and subsequent actions taken by the tax authorities.

3. The judgment also addressed the availability of alternative remedies to the petitioners. It was noted that the petitioners have the right to make a representation for the release of goods by furnishing security under the relevant provisions of the Act. If this representation is rejected, the petitioners can further appeal the decision and invoke the powers of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, ensuring that adequate legal avenues are available to address grievances.

4. Lastly, there was a concern raised regarding the potential interference with the valuation by the Joint Commissioner when deciding on the representation submitted by the petitioners. The court dismissed this apprehension, stating that the Joint Commissioner can exercise his powers provided there is sufficient evidence presented regarding the valuation of the goods. Additionally, the availability of an appeal to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal under Section 57 of the Act further safeguards against any unjust decisions.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the Commissioner had the authority to constitute a Committee for the valuation of goods, and the petitioners had access to alternative legal remedies to address any grievances arising from the valuation and detention of goods.