9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 332 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWrit petition maintainability petitioner failed to pay the demand amount Held that - court does not propose to foreclose the petitioner s rights, as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Act and the petitioner can file a revision under Section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 writ petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 for the year 1999-2000; Interpretation of Section 27(3) of the Act; Validity of penalty for belated payment; Applicability of compensatory penalty under Section 27(3); Alternative remedy under Section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, challenged a notice dated 10.04.2013, which demanded payment of ?34,98,465 due to delayed payment of a tax assessment from 1999-2000. The respondent relied on Section 27(3) of the Act, stating the penalty was compensatory, not for belated payment, citing the Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. case. The petitioner contested the penalty, arguing against willful suppression and lack of prior proposal for the penalty. The petitioner previously challenged the assessment in 2001, leading to a stay order until 2011 when the case was dismissed. The respondent issued the penalty notice after the petitioner paid the remaining tax in 2011. The Court noted the compensatory nature of the penalty under Section 27(3) and the dealer's responsibility for the turnover tax. The judgment emphasized that the penalty was automatic and not subject to discretion due to the nature of the tax involved. The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order but preserved the petitioner's right to file a revision under Section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The judgment dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, allowing the petitioner to seek remedy through the revision process within 30 days, with the revisional authority having the discretion to consider the petition without reference to the limitation period. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.
|
