9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 214 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPIL - taking away the earlier vested powers to make best judgment assessment - Deletion of the provisions of Section 29(5) from the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - validity of first appellate forum of assistant commissioner or deputy commissioner - public interest litigation or not - HELD THAT - The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant who represents the cause of the dealers and other assessees under the said Act. According to us, such dealers and assessees under the said Act are not poor or ignorant persons who are unable to espouse their own cause. In this case, the petitioner has given certain instances relating to his own clients. We are not prepared to accept that such clients, if aggrieved by any orders made by the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals are not in a position to seek redressal for themselves. Accordingly, there is no case made out to relax the rule of locus standi and entertain this petition as a public interest litigation. The deletion of Section 29(5), cannot be challenged simply on the ground that the provisions prior to deletion were better. However, we do not wish to delve any further on this issue lest, we might be preempting challenges from a proper relator. This petition cannot be entertained as public interest litigation - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Deletion of Section 29(5) from the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. Constitution of Appellate Authorities under the said Act. 3. Constitution of Tribunals under Section 14 of the said Act. 4. Provision of advocates for officials facing proceedings before Lokayukta. 5. Non-implementation of Lokayukta orders by the State Government. Deletion of Section 29(5): The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, challenges the deletion of Section 29(5) from the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005, arguing it is unconstitutional and has caused difficulties for assessees. The court declines to entertain this challenge, stating that the issue cannot be challenged solely based on the belief that the previous provisions were better, without a proper relator. Constitution of Appellate Authorities: The petitioner questions the constitution of Appellate Authorities under the said Act, arguing that officers like Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, who may be involved in initial assessment orders, should not have appellate powers. The court finds that since the enactment of the Act in 2005, appeals have been provided to Assistant Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, and vague allegations do not warrant public interest litigation. Constitution of Tribunals under Section 14: Regarding the constitution of Tribunals under Section 14 of the Act, the petitioner contends that the State has vested these powers in an Administrative Tribunal lacking fiscal expertise. The court upholds the constitution of the Administrative Tribunal as the Tribunal for the Act, dismissing the challenge against the expertise of its members. Provision of Advocates for Officials: The petitioner raises concerns about the provision of advocates for officials facing proceedings before Lokayukta, arguing it is improper. The court finds that the petitioner is not directly involved in these cases and that aggrieved parties have the means to challenge such orders, thus rejecting the need for public interest litigation on this ground. Non-implementation of Lokayukta Orders: Lastly, the petitioner alleges non-implementation of Lokayukta orders by the State Government, citing a news report. The court dismisses this claim, emphasizing the need for concrete cases with grievances rather than general reports for the consideration of public interest litigation. In conclusion, the court dismisses the petition, stating that most issues raised do not qualify for public interest litigation. It highlights that the petitioner's clients are capable of seeking redressal themselves, and challenges to legislation should not typically be entertained through public interest litigation. The judgment clarifies that specific grievances warrant consideration, not general complaints based on news reports, and imposes no costs on the petitioner in this instance.
|
