2019 (11) TMI 115 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Concessional rate of duty - Diesel - notification dated 29.12.2017 - HELD THAT - In case this order is heard on its merit, it would not only be going against the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court which only speaks of judicial remedy , which strictly speaking would be a statutory remedy available to the petitioner. The second reason would also be that in case observations are made by this Court while deciding the writ petition as to whether the use of diesel is actually in a manufacturing process or not, then the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 before the Joint Commissioner Appeals would be a mere formality, or rather it would become redundant. This Court refrains to say anything on the merit of the case. The writ petition stands dismissed in view of the statutory appeal available to the petitioner under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the concessional rate of diesel claimed by the petitioner.
2. Whether the use of diesel for transportation purposes is an integral part of the manufacturing process.
3. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Challenge against the order directing the petitioner to avail statutory remedy.
5. Applicability of judicial remedy in the present case.
6. Consideration of statutory appeal available to the petitioner under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the concessional rate of diesel claimed, stating it was being used for transportation instead of the manufacturing process inside the factory. The Assessing Officer held that transporting raw material to the factory premises was not integral to manufacturing.

2. The petitioner argued that the use of diesel for transporting raw material should be considered part of the manufacturing process, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the Assessing Authority disagreed, leading the petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner faced difficulty due to a previous order directing them to avail statutory remedy, which was challenged in a special appeal and subsequently dismissed by the Division Bench of the Court. The Division Bench emphasized the importance of submitting a reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority.

4. The Division Bench's order highlighted that the petitioner could pursue judicial remedies after the Deputy Commissioner's decision. The petitioner contended that this included a remedy under the writ jurisdiction of the Court, but the Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case to avoid undermining the statutory appeal process under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of the statutory appeal under the Act. By refraining from delving into the merits of the case, the Court upheld the importance of following the statutory appeal process for resolving the dispute regarding the use of diesel in the manufacturing process.