2015 (3) TMI 1192 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Dismissal of Writ Petitions Over Re-assessment Order under KVAT & CST Acts

ABB INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ABB LIMITED) Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions seeking to quash the re-assessment order and demand notice under the KVAT Act and CST Act. The court found ... Seeking quash of re-assessment order and consequential demand notice - Violation of principles of natural justice - Opportunity of personal hearing not granted - Petitioner requested for grant of additional time to file balance statutory forms/certificates and to upload into the departmental portal- Inter-state sale of goods - Held that:- when impugned order is perused, it would not detain this Court too long to brush aside the contention raised by petitioner, for simple reason that in the instant case opportunity was extended as could be seen from notice dated 31.01.2015 and endorsement dated 04.02.2015. In fact, petitioner sought for further time through its application/request letter which would clearly indicate that petitioner had notice of the proceedings. In that view of the matter, it cannot be construed that no opportunity was extended to petitioner or there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Endorsement would clearly indicate that opportunity of hearing had been extended to the petitioner and petitioner did not appear before the respondent – authority. Therefore, contention raised with regard to there being violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. It is also made clear that petitioner shall deposit 30% of the demand raised under the impugned orders along with the appeal and appellate authority shall not insist on deposit of remaining 70% of the amount but shall proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. - Petition disposed of Issues:Petition to quash re-assessment order and demand notice under KVAT Act and CST Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the re-assessment order and demand notice issued by the respondent. The petitioner, a dealer registered under the KVAT Act and CST Act, contested the legality of the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the respondent. The petitioner claimed concessional rates of tax or exemption for inter-State sales but faced challenges in producing statutory forms within the given timeframe. The respondent confirmed the demand for incremental tax due to non-filing of statutory forms, leading to the petitioner's grievance of violation of natural justice.2. The petitioner argued against the invocation of an alternate remedy, citing a judgment allowing the High Court to set aside orders violating natural justice. On the other hand, the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner not utilizing the available appeal remedy. The High Court observed that the impugned order was appealable under the KVAT Act, indicating that the petitioner had the option to appeal.3. The High Court examined the facts and found that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to respond and submit required documents. The court noted that the petitioner was present during the audit of accounts and was served with necessary notices. Despite extensions granted, the petitioner failed to comply with the submission requirements, leading to the passing of the impugned order. The court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the petitioner was afforded opportunities to present its case.4. Referring to legal precedents, the High Court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the court from intervening in cases involving fundamental rights, natural justice violations, or jurisdictional issues. The court highlighted that the power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary but can be exercised in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court found that the petitioner's claim of natural justice violation was unfounded, and thus, the writ petitions were dismissed. The petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge the impugned order before the first appellate authority, with specific directives on depositing a portion of the demanded amount for the appeal process.