2018 (3) TMI 2 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - completion of reassessment proceedings - By the impugned Endorsements Annexure-A1 dated 17.01.2018 and Annexure-A2 dated 01.02.2018 respectively, the 3rd Respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit & Recovery)-5, Mangalore, has called upon the petitioner to appear before it within a period of seven days thereof and conclude the reassessment proceedings for the aforesaid Four Assessment Years. Held that - this Court is of the opinion that since the competent Appellate Authority namely, CSTAA is seized of the pending appeal of the petitioner-assessee along with the stay application also, on which no interim orders are said to be passed as of now, entertaining the present writ petition at this stage would be premature and the petitioner ought to have approached the said Tribunal itself for grant of appropriate interim orders in the matter and so that the multiplicity of the proceedings on account of the Respondent-Department now seeking to conclude the reassessment proceedings and pass fresh orders in pursuance of the said impugned remand order of the KAT which is under challenge before the CSTAA could be avoided. The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner-company to approach the said CSTAA for appropriate orders in the pending appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Premature invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Competency of the Appellate Authority in pending appeal and stay application.
3. Multiplicity of proceedings due to reassessment proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Department.

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed the issue of premature invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-company. The Court noted that since the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority (CSTAA) was already seized of the pending appeal and stay application without any interim orders passed, entertaining the writ petition at that stage would be premature. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have approached the CSTAA for appropriate interim relief to avoid multiplicity of proceedings arising from the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Department.

2. Regarding the competency of the Appellate Authority, the Court highlighted that the CSTAA was already dealing with the petitioner's pending appeal and stay application. The Court emphasized that it was essential for the petitioner to seek interim relief directly from the CSTAA rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the CSTAA for necessary orders in the pending appeal and stay application.

3. The Court also addressed the issue of multiplicity of proceedings resulting from the Commercial Tax Department's intention to conclude the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-2010. The Court directed the petitioner-company to approach the CSTAA for appropriate orders within a specified timeframe and restrained the Deputy Commissioner from precipitating the proceedings against the petitioner for a specific period. The Court clarified that the further course of the case would depend on any orders passed by the CSTAA in the matter, thereby ensuring a streamlined process and avoiding unnecessary parallel proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty and direction to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the CSTAA in the pending appeal and stay application. The Court provided a temporary relief period and instructed the Deputy Commissioner not to proceed against the petitioner during that time, emphasizing the importance of following the established appellate process and avoiding premature invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction.