Bond-to-bond warehoused goods sale taxed again was treated as unauthorised double taxation under the VAT scheme.

Bond-to-bond sales of warehoused goods under the Maharashtra VAT liquor scheme were described as taxable only at the first point of sale, so a further levy on the petitioner was treated as contrary to the statutory notification structure and without authority. The text also states that the transaction remained governed by the law in force on the sale date, with Hotel Ashoka controlling; later views in Nirmalkumar Parsan and Radhasons International were not applied to alter that completed transaction. It further notes that taxing the same goods again, after tax had already been paid and accepted on the earlier sale, amounted to double taxation, and writ relief was available despite an alternate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy imposed on the petitioner for the bonded warehouse transaction was ultra vires the MVAT notification scheme and the Central Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the later decision in Nirmalkumar Parsan could be applied to a transaction governed by the law prevailing on the date of sale, or whether the earlier law in Hotel Ashoka controlled. (iii) Whether the impugned demand resulted in impermissible double taxation and was saved by the availability of an alternate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the levy imposed on the petitioner for the bonded warehouse transaction was ultra vires the MVAT notification scheme and the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The transaction between the petitioner and ASK Agencies was a bond-to-bond sale from one bonded warehouse to another within Maharashtra. The sale was treated as falling in the course of import under the legal position then prevailing, and the liquor taxation scheme under Section 3 read with Section 41(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the notification dated 30.04.2011 contemplated levy only at the first point of sale. The record showed that ASK Agencies had already discharged tax on the subsequent sale and that such payment had been accepted by the department.

Conclusion: The levy on the petitioner was held to be without authority and contrary to the statutory scheme.

Issue (ii): Whether the later decision in Nirmalkumar Parsan could be applied to a transaction governed by the law prevailing on the date of sale, or whether the earlier law in Hotel Ashoka controlled.

Analysis: The Court held that tax matters must be decided according to the law in force when the transaction is adjudicated, but the transaction itself remained governed by the legal position applicable when it occurred. On the date of the impugned transaction, Hotel Ashoka governed the treatment of warehoused goods and supported the petitioner's case. The later decision in Nirmalkumar Parsan, and the later interpretation in Radhasons International, could not be used to reopen or alter the legal character of the completed transaction for the petitioner's assessment.

Conclusion: The transaction was held to be governed by the earlier law, and the later decision was not applied against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned demand resulted in impermissible double taxation and was saved by the availability of an alternate remedy.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the same goods had already suffered tax at the first point of sale in the hands of ASK Agencies, and a further levy on the petitioner would amount to taxation of the same transaction twice. The situation was also found to be revenue neutral because any recovery from the petitioner would necessarily require corresponding adjustment or refund in relation to the tax already collected from ASK Agencies. The existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ interference because the challenge involved excess of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The demand was held to amount to double taxation and the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment demand was quashed, and the petitioner obtained complete relief against the impugned levy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where warehoused goods are sold in a bond-to-bond transaction and the applicable scheme permits levy only at the first point of sale, a later attempt to tax the same goods again is impermissible, especially when the earlier levy has already been discharged and accepted.

---