9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed below, as the facts in other writ petitions, which are similar in nature, except the dates of the impugned orders, the years of assessment and the amounts involved are only different. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of tea and is registered under the AGST Act, 1993 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is also a member of the Guwahati Tea Auction Centre. It's business constitutes purchase of tea from Guwahati Tea Auction Centre and the entire purchase sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce to the registered dealers having their business outside the State of Assam. The Government of Assam vide notification dated July 21, 1972 notified that any registered dealer buying tea from Guwahati Tea Auction Centre and selling the same to the registered dealers in other States in the course of inter-State sale shall be exempted from payment of Central sales tax. However, such exemption from payment of tax was done away with by annexure III notification dated July 20, 2004 notifying that inter-State sale to a registered dealer of tea purchased from Guwahati Tea Auction Centre shall attract Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dear Sir, Sub: Use of Obsolete/Fake C forms Kindly refer to your Letter No. Gau/U-B/C-9/1786 dated June 16, 2004. In this connection we submit as under: 1.. That the sales covered by 'C' forms as mentioned in your show cause notice No. Gau/U-B/C-9/1227 dated May 24, 2004 were made to genuine parties. Full details of such sales were furnished to you at the time of assessment. 2.. That 'C' forms sent by the above parties were accepted by us in good faith. We had no mechanism to verify the genuineness of the 'C' forms received by us. 3.. That we still have no reason or material to suspect that the 'C' forms mentioned in your show cause notices are fake/obsolete. We would therefore request you to kindly make available to us all the materials/evidences which are in your possession on the basis of which you have issued the above referred show cause notices to us. This will enable us to meet the case that might be made against us on the basis of such materials/evidence. 4.. That we had no intention/motive of evading any tax on the sales made by us. We simply collect the tax and pay it to the credit of State/Central Government. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the impugned orders. The specific averments made in the counter-affidavit are reproduced below: That the respondents respectfully beg to state that the power of reassessment as exercised in the instant case is vested upon the assessing officer in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the AGST Act, 1993. As such, no jurisdictional error can be attributed to the action taken by the respondents in the instant case. The respondents humbly submit that it is a settled principle of law that in a taxing statute where an appeal is provided for, the same must be exhausted. The petitioner with an intention to circumvent the appeal provision has approached this honourable court. Moreover, as has already been narrated hereinabove, the very conduct of the petitioner disentitles it from any relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents further humbly beg to submit that the purpose of judicial review is a review of the decision making process and not the decision itself. That in this regard has been crystallised in a catena of judgments by the apex court wherein it has been time and again reiterated that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under article 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioners have got remedy of appeal, as statutorily provided, against the impugned orders. Chapter VIII of the AGST Act, 1993 deals with the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the authorities. As per section 33(6) of the Act, an appeal against an order of assessment of tax with or without penalty or against an order imposing penalty shall lie unless such appeal is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of tax including penalty, if any, which is admitted to be due or 20 per cent of the amount of tax including penalty, if any, which has been assessed or levied whichever is higher, provided that the appellate authority or Tribunal may, if it thinks fit for reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to furnishing of such security as such authority may deem fit, admit an appeal against such order with part payment or without any payment of the disputed amount of tax including penalty, if any, required under this sub-section with a view to mitigate undue hardship which is likely to be caused to the dealer or person if the payment of such disputed amount is insisted on. Similarly, section 19 of the CST Act, 1956 provides for constitution of Central Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge upon discussions of the factual matrix and the laws applicable to the case including the decisions on which the parties placed reliance, held the writ petitions to be not maintainable and accordingly directions were issued to approach the appellate authority. It was submitted at the Bar that against this decision of the learned single Judge, the petitioners preferred writ appeal and the same has been dismissed affirming the said judgment and order. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to distinguish the judgment projecting the alleged distinctive features of both the batch of writ petitions. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. Except the fact that in the writ petitions involved in the aforesaid judgment and order were in respect of assessment orders passed by the taxing authority on the basis of its best judgment unlike the present batch of writ petition, in which the petitioners are aggrieved by the reassessment orders, there is no qualitative distinction between the two batch of writ petitions. The issue involved is one and the same, which is, whether the impugned orders c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. Similarly in the case of L. K. Verma [2006] 2 SCC 269, the apex court restating the circumstances in which alternative remedy is not a bar towards maintainability of writ petitions, also emphasised on the general principle not to entertain a writ petition, inter alia, on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. This well-settled principle of the alternative remedy being not an absolute bar to exercise the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India is well recognised and need not be over-emphasised. At the same time, this principle cannot have universal application making the same applicable to all kind of situations. None of the petitioners has contended and/or pleaded anything as to why they are not in a position to pursue the statutory remedy and as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
