2022 (7) TMI 43 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of Natural Justice - Period of limitation - whether the claim of the Petitioner seeking payment of tax @ 4% has to be accepted more so having regard to the different stand taken by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority in the suo motu revision? - HELD THAT - In the present case neither there is breach of any fundamental rights or an excess of jurisdiction nor is there a challenge to the vires of the statue or delegated legislation. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that his case would fall under the category of violation of principles of natural justice but the record nowhere indicate any order being passed without hearing the Petitioner. A perusal of the interim order would show that personal hearing was accorded on 31.01.2022. Therefore even the said ground may not be available to the case of the Petitioner. Further a perusal of the order impugned dated 04.02.2022 would show that the Commercial Tax Officer Chittoor Circle-I passed a detailed order dealing with various aspects and ultimately held that the dealer has committed an offence under AP VAT Act 2005. The Order also indicates that the Petitioner has got an opportunity of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has got remedy of Appeal wherein he can raise all the pleas taken now the present Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the Petitioner to avail the remedy available under law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order under AP VAT Act, 2005 for tax periods 08/2005 to 07/2009 on grounds of illegality and impropriety.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed questioning the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent under the AP VAT Act, 2005. The Petitioner, a registered dealer in machinery and food processing equipment, challenged the imposition of tax on certain goods at 12.5%. A series of appeals and revisions ensued, leading to the present challenge. The Additional Commissioner revised the Appellate Authority's order, which was then remanded by the VAT Appellate Tribunal. The 1st Respondent subsequently reaffirmed the tax imposition, prompting the Writ Petition. Grounds of challenge included delay in passing the order, limitation issues, and disagreement with the classification of goods for taxation.

The Petitioner argued that the 1st Respondent's order was illegal and contrary to law, while the Special Government Pleader contended that the issues raised required adjudication by the Appellate Authority rather than through a Writ Petition. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Pleader emphasized the availability of statutory remedies through appeal. The Court noted the disputed factual aspects, especially regarding limitation and tax rate, and referenced the Supreme Court's stance on alternate remedies in tax matters.

The Court highlighted that the Petitioner's case did not involve fundamental rights, excess jurisdiction, or vires of legislation, limiting the grounds for a Writ Petition. Despite the Petitioner's claim of a violation of natural justice, the Court found no evidence of unfair treatment, as a personal hearing was conducted. The Assessment Order provided the Petitioner with the opportunity to appeal within 30 days. Considering the available statutory remedy and lack of exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, allowing the Petitioner to pursue remedies through appeal. The period of pendency of the Writ Petition was to be excluded from the calculation of limitation periods. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed accordingly.