2016 (6) TMI 8 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Constitutionality of Notification No. FD 21 CSL 2014(II) dated 28.02.2014 - levy of tax on sale of liquor including beer, fenny, liqueur and wine by a dealer who is not a person holding licence in Form - Held that - by respectfully agreeing with the submission at bar by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Revenue and having gone through the detailed judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.09.2015 (Sri. M.Madhava Gowda vs. Under Secretary to Government and others) and other connected cases, dismissing similar writ petitions, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition also deserves to be dismissed for the same reasons and in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 30.09.2015. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Notification No.FD 21 CSL 2014(II) dated 28.02.2014 as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged Notification No.FD 21 CSL 2014(II) dated 28.02.2014, claiming it to be discriminatory and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought the quashing of the said notification and a direction to quash the impugned order dated 05.02.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted similar writ petitions dismissed by a Single Judge and appealed before the Division Bench. The Revenue contended that the writ petitions were unnecessary and should be dismissed, as the matter was already under consideration by the Division Bench. The Court agreed with the Revenue's submission, citing the judgment of the Single Judge dated 30.09.2015, which dismissed similar writ petitions. The Court emphasized the classification of dealers based on value addition and area criteria for tax levy, upholding the validity of the notification. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating the petitioner could file an appeal if desired.

The Court noted the dismissal of similar writ petitions challenging the notification and emphasized the rationale behind the classification of dealers for tax levy. The Court agreed with the Revenue's argument that the writ petition was premature, as the matter was already before the Division Bench. The Court quoted the judgment of the Single Judge dated 30.09.2015, highlighting the considerations regarding different classes of dealers and the legislative intent behind the tax levy. The Court dismissed the writ petition, aligning with the previous judgment's findings and rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner.

The Court declined to follow the course of action suggested by the petitioner's counsel to place the matter before the Division Bench, as similar cases were already pending. The Court emphasized the option for the petitioner to file an appeal against the Single Judge's order if desired. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, concurred with the observations of the Single Judge in the previous judgment, and did not award any costs.