2019 (5) TMI 365 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal - Validity of assessment order - HELD THAT - The petitioner is threatened with coercive recovery of the entire tax demand, in view of the fact that after the order of assessment is passed, the petitioner applied for rectification before the same Authority, such rectification application was decided sometime later. Though substantial relief was granted to the petitioner, the same does not fully satisfied the petitioner. It would be open for the petitioner to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. If the petitioner files such appeal latest by 31.5.2019, the same shall be entertained on merits - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order of assessment by Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, availability of statutory appellate remedy, bypassing statutory remedy, threat of coercive recovery, directions for filing appeal before Appellate Authority and making pre-deposit of tax.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged an order of assessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax imposing a sizable tax liability. The petitioner disputed the tax liability on various grounds. The Court noted the availability of a statutory appellate remedy and declined to entertain the petition directly due to the existence of such remedy in fiscal matters. The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the Court directly against an assessment order. The petitioner's argument of legal errors and breach of natural justice by the Assessing Authority was not sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concern regarding coercive recovery of the tax demand. The petitioner had applied for rectification, and although some relief was granted, it did not fully satisfy the petitioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with directions for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority by a specified date. The Court allowed the appeal to be entertained on merits if filed within the deadline. Additionally, the Court directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of tax as per the statute and apply for a stay of the remaining demand pending appeal to avoid coercive recovery during the appeal process.

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the rival contentions presented during the proceedings. The petition was disposed of in accordance with the directions provided, allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy while ensuring protection against coercive recovery through the specified procedures.