9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gudur in Andhra Pradesh and at Ponneri and Athipetti in Tamil Nadu. For assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner claimed exemption under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the Central Act ) to the tune of Rs. 2,08,93,930 by asserting that it had transferred the stock of rubber products and adhesives manufactured in the regular course of business to its branches outside the State for being used in the execution of work contracts and the branches had also effected intra-State sales of a portion of the rubber products and adhesives received by way of stock transfer after paying the local taxes due on such sales. By an order dated February 18, 2003, respondent No. 1 accepted the petitioner's claim for exemption. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order, it has been pleaded that respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to create tax liability because the transactions in question were stock transfer and not inter-State sales. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for stay of the order passed by respondent No. 2 and the consequential notice issued by respondent No. 1. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 3 passed an order dated June 29, 2006, whereby he dismissed the stay application by observing that respondent No. 2 had revised the assessment because the goods were proved to have been sent in furtherance of prior purchase order and, therefore, the transactions were rightly treated as inter-State sales. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by respondent No. 3 is vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and non-application of mind. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending adjudication before respondent No. 4, we do not consider it proper to express final opinion on the merits and demerits of the reasons assigned by respondent No. 3 for declining the petitioner's prayer for stay, but we do not have the slightest hesitation to reject the prayer made in the writ petition for annulment of order dated June 29, 2006. It is true that the order impugned in the writ petition does not contain detailed reasons, but that cannot be a ground for nullifying the discretion exercised by respondent No. 3 for refusing to stay the disputed demand of Rs. 25,07,272 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to assail the validity of the levy. So also there is no warrant for presuming the levy to be bad at the very threshold of the proceedings. The only consideration at that juncture is to ensure that no prejudice is occasioned to the rate payers in case they ultimately succeed at the conclusion of the proceedings. This object can be attained by requiring the body or authority levying the impost to give an undertaking to refund or adjust against future dues, the levy of tax or rate or a part thereof, as the case may be, in the event of the entire levy or a part thereof being ultimately held to be invalid by the court without obliging the taxpayers by the court to institute a civil suit in order to claim the amount already recovered from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue, sources which they would rather well leave alone in the public interest, because of the stays granted by courts. We have come across cases where an entire service is left in a stay of flutter and unrest because of interim orders passed by courts, leaving the work they are supposed to do in a state of suspended animation. We have come across cases where buses and lorries are being run under orders of court though they were either denied permits or their permits had been cancelled or suspended by transport authorities. We have come across cases where liquor shops are being run under interim orders of court. We have come across cases where the collection of monthly rentals payable by excise contractors has been stayed with the result t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the parties have come to the court alleging prejudice, inconvenience or harm and that a prima facie case has been shown. There can be and there are no hard and fast rules. But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is the question of irreparable injury. There is the question of the public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration. We often wonder why in the case of indirect taxation where the burden has already been passed on to the consumer, any interim relief should at all be given to the manufacturer, dealer and the like. (underlining Here italic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
