Court directs coffee vending machine company to file statutory appeal within two weeks [4]

The court directed the petitioner, a private limited company in the business of coffee vending machines, to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks. The court stayed the Garnishee notice until the Appellate Authority decides on the application seeking stay of the demand, subject to compliance with Section 63[4] of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of, and the original impugned orders were to be returned to the petitioner, with photocopies retained for record purposes.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to endorsement and garnishee proceedings by the respondent No.1, rectification application rejection under Section 69[1] of the Act, necessity of statutory appeal, stay on Garnishee notice.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an endorsement and garnishee proceedings issued by respondent No.1, seeking rectification of a mistake in Form VAT 240. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of coffee vending machines, claimed input tax credit on a deducted tax amount, which was denied by the Assessing Authority. The rectification application under Section 69[1] of the Act was rejected.

2. The petitioner argued that the prescribed authority failed to rectify the mistake apparent from the record in filing VAT Form 240. The Department proceeded with recovery proceedings despite the availability of an appeal against the rejection of the rectification application. The petitioner contended that the respondents were acting hastily in recovering the tax amount without awaiting the appeal period.

3. The Additional Government Advocate justified the orders, stating that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. It was argued that the petitioner should exhaust the alternative statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the Court.

4. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submissions, emphasizing that the issue involved factual aspects better suited for adjudication by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had not challenged the assessment order, and the rejection of the rectification application was the primary issue in the present proceedings.

5. The Court highlighted the limited scope of rectification under Section 69 of the Act, emphasizing that mistakes by the Chartered Accountant in filing VAT Form 240 did not qualify as mistakes apparent from the record. It was noted that attempts to rectify such mistakes should have been made during the assessment proceedings.

6. The Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks. It stayed the Garnishee notice until the Appellate Authority decides on the application seeking stay of the demand, subject to compliance with Section 63[4] of the Act.

7. With the given observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of, and the original impugned orders were to be returned to the petitioner, with photocopies retained for record purposes.

---