9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 59 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRelease of detained goods - intra-state sale - jurisdiction - case of appellant is that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to detain the consignment, since it was an interstate sale, where the appellant had already paid the Central Sales Tax - Held that - The appellant has not invoked the provision under Article 269 of the Constitution of India, in the grounds stated in the writ petition. The said fact has to be urged before the Appellate Authority. By an interim order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2012 on 08.02.2013, the appellant s interest has been safeguarded, as an interim measure. Therefore, it is open to the appellant to prefer an appeal as per Section 54 of the TNVAT Act. Since the appellant has got the benefit of the interim orders for release of goods, by furnishing bank guarantee as security, no prejudice would be caused for the appellant to file an appeal, before the appellate authority, by raising all the grounds - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to detain goods in an interstate sale. 2. Imposition of tax and penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act. 3. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction to Detain Goods in an Interstate Sale: The appellant contended that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to detain the consignment as it was an interstate sale, for which Central Sales Tax had already been paid. The appellant argued that the goods were dispatched to M/s. RTL Mobiles Private Limited, Chennai, and were detained by the 2nd respondent, who demanded tax and penalty under the TNVAT Act. The appellant maintained that the 2nd respondent lacked jurisdiction to impose such demands. 2. Imposition of Tax and Penalty under the TNVAT Act: The respondents issued a goods detention notice and demanded a sum of ?7,30,800/- as tax and penalty. The appellant challenged this imposition, arguing that the purchase order was terminated by M/s. RTL Mobiles due to delayed delivery and that the appellant was not liable to pay the tax and penalty. The 1st respondent, however, contended that the cancellation of the purchase order was an attempt to avoid tax and penalty after the consignment was detained. 3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226, challenging the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and seeking the release of the detained goods. The respondents argued that the grounds raised by the appellant were jurisdictional facts that should be addressed before the Appellate Authority, not the High Court. The respondents further argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. 4. Availability and Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: The court emphasized the principle that when a statutory forum is available for redressal, a writ petition should not be entertained. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in *Karnataka Chemical Industries vs. Union of India*, *C.A. Abraham vs. Income Tax Officer*, and *Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan*, which reinforced the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. The court noted that the appellant had the option to file an appeal under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act and that the disputed facts should be addressed by the appellate authority. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ appeal, granting liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate forum within four weeks. The interim orders for the release of goods, secured by a bank guarantee, were to remain in force until the filing of the appeal. The court reiterated that the appellant should utilize the statutory remedy provided under the TNVAT Act to address their grievances. Final Judgment: The writ appeal was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal within three weeks. The interim orders would remain effective until the appeal was filed. If the appeal was not filed in time, the respondents were permitted to proceed according to law. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed with no order as to costs.
|
