2018 (9) TMI 725 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Service of Order - Order of attachment - arrears of sales tax - only grievance of the writ petitioner is that the original assessment order had not been served - Held that - If the original order of assessment became final, then the consequential order of attachment, cannot be challenged as the Assessee had accepted the original assessment order. In the event of not challenging the original assessment order, it is to be construed that the assessment became final and therefore the consequential attachment order, cannot constitute a cause of action for moving the writ petition or otherwise. In respect of the present writ petition on hand, the attachment order issued, consequent to the issuance of the original assessment order, is under challenge. Now it is established by the respondents that they have served the original assessment order to the writ petitioner in the manner known to law. Thus, the writ petition deserves no further consideration. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of attachment dated 30.11.2015.
2. Alleged failure to serve the original assessment order to the writ petitioner.
3. Dispute regarding the attachment of property due to arrears of sales tax.
4. Contention on the legality of the consequential order of attachment.
5. Compliance with statutory procedures for serving assessment orders.
6. Right of appeal against the original assessment order.
7. Challenge to the attachment order consequent to the original assessment order.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash the order of attachment dated 30.11.2015, concerning a property in Cuddalore District due to arrears of sales tax. The petitioner argued that the original assessment order was not served, rendering the attachment invalid.

2. The petitioner contended that the original assessment order dated 15.06.2015 was not received, depriving the right to appeal. However, the respondents claimed that the assessment order was sent via registered post, and when refused, it was affixed on the petitioner's residential door.

3. The petitioner's daughter's house was inspected for alleged business activities, which were not found. The petitioner emphasized that the property was solely residential, not related to any commercial ventures.

4. The legality of the consequential order of attachment was challenged by the petitioner, citing non-service of the original assessment order as a crucial factor in the dispute.

5. The respondents argued that the original assessment order was duly served by following legal procedures, including sending it via registered post and affixing it on the petitioner's door in the presence of witnesses.

6. The court highlighted the petitioner's right of appeal against the original assessment order under Section 51 of the Act. Failure to challenge the original assessment order implied acceptance, precluding objections to the consequential attachment order.

7. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the respondents had properly served the original assessment order. The petitioner was advised to pursue available appeal remedies instead of challenging the attachment order directly.