9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that the petitioners are not the dealer nor is their activity in disposing of repossessed motor vehicles a sale under the MVAT Act. It is for the respondents now to issue an appropriate notice in case it does not agree with the contention of the petitioners. On such a notice being issued by the respondent, the petitioners would respond. As no proceedings have yet been commenced and no order has been passed by the Authorities under the MVAT Act on the proper interpretation of the words “Seller” and “Dealer” in the context of Entry No.82B of the Schedule C to the MVAT Act, it would only be proper that if and when the Revenue issues a notice, the petitioners will respond to the same and appropriate order thereon would be passed - If th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry No.82B in Schedule C to the MVAT Act is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the Notification seeks to tax identical nature of goods i.e. second hand motor vehicles on different basis as is evident from the VAT payable on it by other dealers under a composition scheme. 3. Mr. Venkatraman, the learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition very fairly points out that there are decisions of Madras, Delhi, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Orissa High Courts where orders were passed in the petitioners' own cases and it was held under the respective Acts that the petitioners were dealers in respect of the sale of repossessed motor vehicles and liable to VAT. However, he further points out that all the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners will respond to the same and appropriate order thereon would be passed. If the petitioners succeed in its contention with regard to the interpretation of the words Seller and Dealer in the context of Entry No.82B, Schedule C to the MVAT Act, then the challenge to the constitutional validity would in the present facts become unnecessary. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the view that at this stage, the petition is premature. The issue of constitutional validity would only arise if interpretation put forth by the petitioners on the Entry No.82B of Schedule C to the MVAT Act does not find favour with the respondent Revenue on adjudication. Thus, we see no reason to interfere at this stage. However, we make it clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
