2019 (3) TMI 1801 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeals dismissed, appellants get 30 days to reply. Assessing Authority to decide first. No coercive steps allowed.

M/s Nector Life Sciences, M/s Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. and others, M/s K.V. Aromatics and M/s Abhay Chemicals Versus State of Uttarakhand and others and State of Uttarakhand (Finance) Institution and Finance

M/s Nector Life Sciences, M/s Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. and others, M/s K.V. Aromatics and M/s Abhay Chemicals Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority under Section 28(2) read with Section 25(6) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act.2. Classification of the transaction as inter-State or intra-State sale.3. Applicability of Section 3(10)(b) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act.4. Relevance of the agreement between the principal and commission agents.5. The appropriateness of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.6. The validity of the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority.7. The procedural propriety of the learned Single Judge’s order.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority:The appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority under Section 28(2) read with Section 25(6) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act. They argued that the notice issued was without jurisdiction as the transactions were inter-State sales. The court highlighted that the Assessing Authority must first determine the nature of the transaction, whether it was inter-State or intra-State, based on the facts and agreements presented.2. Classification of the Transaction:The appellants contended that their purchases of mentha oil and peppermint oil through commission agents from farmers in Uttarakhand were inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act), and thus not subject to Uttarakhand VAT. The court noted that this classification is a mixed question of fact and law, which should initially be determined by the Assessing Authority.3. Applicability of Section 3(10)(b) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act:The appellants argued that Section 3(10)(b) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act did not apply to their case as the transactions were inter-State sales. The court emphasized that the Assessing Authority must examine the agreements and determine the nature of the transactions to decide the applicability of this provision.4. Agreement Between Principal and Commission Agents:The appellants relied on their agreements with commission agents to assert that the transactions were inter-State sales. The court stated that the authenticity and terms of these agreements must be scrutinized by the Assessing Authority to ascertain whether the transactions were indeed inter-State.5. Appropriateness of Invoking Article 226:The court observed that invoking Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge a show-cause notice is generally inappropriate, especially when an alternative remedy is available. The court stated that disputed questions of fact should be addressed by the Assessing Authority and not in writ proceedings.6. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice:The appellants claimed that the show-cause notice was without jurisdiction and should be set aside. The court held that a show-cause notice provides an opportunity for the appellants to present their case and does not constitute a final adverse order. The court stated that interference at this stage would be premature unless the notice was ex facie without jurisdiction.7. Procedural Propriety of the Learned Single Judge’s Order:The learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to respond to the show-cause notice and present their case before the Assessing Authority. The court upheld this direction, stating that the Single Judge’s order did not suffer from any patent illegality and that the appellants should utilize the opportunity to file their reply and present their arguments before the Assessing Authority.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were granted an additional 30 days to file their reply to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Authority was directed to consider the objections and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. No coercive steps were to be taken until the Assessing Authority passed its order. The court reiterated that the appellants must first exhaust the alternative remedy before seeking judicial intervention.