2016 (4) TMI 319 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses applications not raising questions of law, emphasizes statutory remedies over writ petitions.

Raskamal Food And Fruit Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of Sales Tax

Raskamal Food And Fruit Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of Sales Tax - TMI Issues:1) Interpretation of questions of law for reference2) Alternative remedy under section 61 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 19593) Time-barred applications and statutory limitations4) Perversity in finding of facts and misconduct in evidence evaluation5) Revisiting factual findings and delay in recovery of duesInterpretation of questions of law for reference:The applicant sought reference of questions of law in Sales Tax Application No. 3 of 2016, which were reviewed by the court. The court concluded that none of the questions raised could be categorized as questions of law. The Division Bench emphasized that even if the Tribunal's order was correct, the appropriate remedy was not a writ petition under Article 226 but invoking section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.Alternative remedy under section 61 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959:The court noted that against the Tribunal's order, the applicant had filed a writ petition which was dismissed, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under section 61. A review petition was filed, arguing that the remedy under section 61 was time-barred. The court directed that if the petitioners pursued the alternate remedy in accordance with the law, it would be entertained without raising objections on the ground of limitation.Time-barred applications and statutory limitations:The court addressed the argument that the applications were time-barred, emphasizing that a court order could not override statutory limitations. The court highlighted that a statutory prescription must be adhered to and cannot be waived by the court, even if there are concessions. The court reiterated that it lacked the power to entertain time-barred applications, as the law was clear on statutory limitations.Perversity in finding of facts and misconduct in evidence evaluation:The court analyzed the contentions regarding perversity in the finding of facts and misconduct in evidence evaluation. It was observed that the issues raised were mixed questions of fact and law, aiming at re-evaluating factual findings rather than demonstrating perversity. The court concluded that the attempts were to delay the recovery of dues without valid legal grounds.Revisiting factual findings and delay in recovery of dues:The Tribunal's detailed order highlighted that the applicant's attempts were to revisit the same transactions and factual findings without substantial legal grounds. The Tribunal found that all transactions were within the tax net, and there was no evidence of inter-State sales. The court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the applications were another attempt to delay recoveries impermissibly. Consequently, all applications were dismissed to prevent further delays in revenue recovery.