2014 (5) TMI 303 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Dismissal of Writ Petitions on Central Sales Tax Act Assessment Orders

The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-2009. The ... Alternative remedy and maintainability of writ - relegation to statutory appeal under Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - presumption under Section 6-A and proof by Form 'F' - assessment to be decided on merits including dealer status and registrationAlternative remedy and maintainability of writ - Whether the writ petitions are maintainable when a statutory appellate remedy is available. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioner has a statutory remedy in the form of an appeal under the Central Sales Tax regime (now provided by Section 18-A) against the assessment orders. In view of the availability of that alternative remedy, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petitions and dismissed them on that ground. The interim orders previously granted were discharged. [Paras 19]Writ petitions dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and interim orders discharged.Relegation to statutory appeal under Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - presumption under Section 6-A and proof by Form 'F' - assessment to be decided on merits including dealer status and registration - Direction to pursue appeal and issues to be considered by the appellate authority. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the highest appellate authority of the State under Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 within six weeks. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. The Court noted that the assessing authority appeared to have relied mechanically on precedent concerning Form 'F' without examining whether the petitioner carried on business in U.P., was a dealer, or required registration; these factual/legal questions (including whether Form 'F' is the only evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 6-A) are to be examined and decided by the appellate authority in the appeal proceedings. [Paras 16, 17, 18]Petitioner relegated to file appeal under Section 18-A within six weeks; highest appellate authority to decide on merits (including dealer status, registration requirement and the role of Form 'F') expeditiously.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as an alternate statutory appeal remedy exists; the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal under Section 18-A within six weeks and the highest appellate authority is to decide the matter on merits (including dealer status, registration and the evidentiary role of Form 'F' under Section 6-A) expeditiously; interim orders are discharged. Issues involved:1. Challenge against assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-2009.2. Prayers for directions regarding the imposition of tax, applicability of Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, and quashing of a circular.3. Dispute over the assessment of Central Sales Tax on transportation of imported machines.4. Claim of the petitioner not being engaged in any business in the State of U.P.5. Interpretation of the judgment in M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd case regarding the requirement of Form 'F' under the Central Sales Tax Act.6. Applicability of Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act for appeals against assessment orders.Detailed Analysis:1. The writ petitions challenged assessment orders for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-2009 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner sought directions to prevent tax imposition based on specific judgments and to declare certain sections inapplicable to their transactions.2. The petitioner argued that they were not conducting business in the State of U.P., primarily providing services to national and international companies. They contended that their activities did not involve sales subject to Central Sales Tax.3. The dispute arose when the assessing authority imposed Central Sales Tax for the relevant years, citing transportation of goods as taxable transactions. The petitioner claimed that previous assessments had not subjected them to such taxes, as their imports were for service purposes, not sales.4. The Court referenced the M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd case, emphasizing the requirement to furnish Form 'F' for transactions involving goods transfer across states. The judgment highlighted the burden on the assessee to comply with Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.5. Considering the legal precedents and the nature of the petitioner's business, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act for a comprehensive review of the assessment orders and related issues.6. Ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedies available through the appellate process. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner to follow the prescribed appeal procedure for a thorough examination of the disputed matters.