9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds by two different authorities in respect of one liability. But that is a matter that does not strike at the root of the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent. Therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not appeal to entertain the writ petition, especially at the stage of show cause notice, when the Supreme Court has granted liberty to whoever it is to issue show cause notice and proceed further. Therefore, there are no justification to entertain the writ petition at this stage. This Court held that the revised show cause notice was issued on liberty being given by Supreme Court. Therefore there was no justification to entertain the challenge to the said show cause notice. In so far the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam or for that matter Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal is concerned, view taken by this Court was that - that is a matter which does not strike at the root of the issue of jurisdiction of the taxing authorities. Since it has not collected luxury tax, it is not liable to pay such tax, be it to the second respondent or to the third respondent. In the circumstances, to restrain the th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngana. Petitioner got itself registered as a dealer under the Luxuries Tax Act in both the States and thereafter filed monthly returns. 7. Petitioner filed W.P.No.16909 of 1996 before the then combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad challenging the levy of luxuries tax on tobacco i.e., questioning the constitutionality of Section 3A of the Luxuries Tax Act. However by the judgment and order dated 12.11.1998, W.P.No.16909 of 1996 was dismissed by this Court. 8. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.11.1998 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No.4846 of 1999. Identical petitions were filed having similar grievance. On 01.04.1999 after civil appeals were registered, Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the dealers to file their returns before the computing authority but the authorities were restrained from taking any action on the returns so filed for recovery of any amount from the dealers during pendency of the appeals. However it was clarified that if the challenge failed, the dealers would be liable to pay the due luxury tax in accordance with the assessments made on the basis of the returns, so filed. It is stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s one of the petitioners in the contempt petition, Supreme Court vide the order dated 06.02.2014 permitted the second respondent to issue appropriate show cause notice bringing to the notice of the dealers including the petitioner that they had collected luxury tax from its consumers/customers after obtaining interim orders from Supreme Court but had not paid the same to the State Government. However it was clarified that second respondent and other authorities should furnish all the particulars available with them to enable the dealers to file appropriate reply including on the point of maintainability. Dealers were given liberty that if they felt aggrieved by any order(s) that may be passed by the second respondent and other revenue officials, they could question the same before the appropriate forum. 11. Thereafter second respondent issued show cause notice dated 07.08.2015 to the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.62.80 crores as allegedly collected by the petitioner towards luxury tax and illegally retaining it. Petitioner denied the allegation vide reply dated 14.09.2015. 12. It may be mentioned that the third respondent had also issued a show cause notice dated 04.09.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions in the writ petition, to avail the remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 11(1) of the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 as against the impugned order, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If an appeal is so filed, the Appellate Authority may condone the delay, entertain the appeal subject to compliance with the prescriptions contained in Section 11(2) and dispose it of in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order. However, the filing of the appeal will not be taken to be an act on the part of the petitioner subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. The filing of the appeal will be without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in the main writ petition. Until a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned demand shall not be enforced, so that the petitioner is able to file an appeal and also seek a stay before the Appellate Authority under Section 11(1) of the Act; and (ii) till the issue is finally decided, the 3rdr respondent is refrained from passing any order. 19. From the above, it is seen that a direction was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettes. 20.4. Subsequently Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2005 declaring Section 3A as unconstitutional. Judgment and order of this Court was set aside. However, Supreme Court observed that if the petitioner and others had charged luxury tax from customers after obtaining interim orders on 01.04.1999, they would have to pay the said amount to the State Government. 20.5. According to the third respondent, petitioner had collected luxury tax post 01.04.1999. Therefore, notices were issued by the respective assessing authorities seeking payment of tax by the petitioner. Assessing authorities of Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad filed contempt petition before Supreme Court alleging violation of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2005 by the petitioner. However, the contempt petition was disposed of on 06.02.2014 permitting the assessing authorities to issue show cause notice to the petitioner of having collected luxury tax from its consumers/customers but not paying the same to the State Government. All particulars were directed to be furnished in the show cause notice. 20.6. In the meanwhile, State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated on 02.06.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titlement to collect luxury tax. 21. Fourth respondent i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada has filed counter affidavit. From the aforesaid affidavit, it appears that against the recovery order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the second respondent, petitioner had preferred appeal before the fourth respondent in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.04.2017 under Section 11(1) of the Luxuries Tax Act. It further appears that the appeal was dismissed vide the order dated 31.05.2019 by affirming the recovery order. 22. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has questioned the appellate order dated 31.05.2019 as a mere reproduction of the order passed by the second respondent. There is no independent application of mind. Thereafter the rejoinder affidavit deals with the merit of petitioner's contention that it did not collect any luxury tax post 01.04.1999 and therefore it is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents. 23. On the basis of the pleadings and other materials on record, the short point which arises for consideration is whether this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition assailing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereafter Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition on 06.02.1994. Relevant portion of the order dated 06.02.2014 reads as under: In the report filed by the Auditors/Chartered Accountants a clean chit is given to the contemnors/respondents. However, the petitioners dispute the report of the auditors/Chartered Accountants. In the matters of this nature, in our opinion, it may not be appropriate for us to initiate any proceedings, much less proceedings under contempt against the respondents. In that view of the matter, we decline to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. The contempt petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, we permit the petitioners to issue appropriate show cause notice(s) to the respondents, inter alia, bringing to their notice collected luxury tax from consumers/customers, but have not paid the same to the State Government. We make it clear that in the show cause notice the petitioners will furnish all the particulars available with them to the respondents, so that the respondents can furnish appropriate reply to the petitioners. After receipt of the show cause notice(s), the respondents are at liberty to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 07.08.2015, has been challenged separately by way of another writ petition. But it is yet to come up for hearing. Therefore, if the claims of both the Commercial Tax Officers are actually sustainable in law, assuming that they are sustainable, the petitioner can always raise a valid point that there cannot be overlap of the claims. There cannot be two demands by two different authorities in respect of one liability. But that is a matter that does not strike at the root of the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent. Therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not appeal to us to entertain the writ petition, especially at the stage of show cause notice, when the Supreme Court has granted liberty to whoever it is to issue show cause notice and proceed further. Therefore, we find no justification to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 20. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to file their objections to the show cause notice within a period of fifteen days, and thereafter, it will be open to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law and in accordance with the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. The said order has been affirmed in the appeal by the fourth respondent vide the order dated 31.05.2019. Fourth respondent is the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, which is also outside the territorial limits of this Court. 35. Whatever may be the litigation history of the case, as of now and in so far the present petition is concerned, the challenge is to the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the second respondent. We are afraid we cannot entertain and continue with the present proceeding against an authority which is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Since the order dated 04.02.2017 has been affirmed in appeal it would be open to the petitioner to make further challenge or to carry forward the challenge before the higher forum but certainly not before this Court. It is not for this Court to take a decision as to whether petitioner had collected any luxury tax from 01.04.1999 to 20.01.2005 within the present State of Telangana or within the present State of Andhra Pradesh. To answer such a question would require determination of various factual aspects which the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction would not like to enter upon. In an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
