2024 (3) TMI 1385 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Petition challenging show cause notice for unauthorized tax collection dismissed, petitioner can pursue remedies after final order

M/s. Laxmi Cement (A Division of JK Corp Ltd.) Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Anti Evasion Circle, Pali.

M/s. Laxmi Cement (A Division of JK Corp Ltd.) Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Anti Evasion Circle, Pali. - 2024:RJ - ... Issues:Claim for reliefs under original application, Impugned notice dated 26.2.98 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Anti Evasion, Pali, Applicability of Sections 28, 63 & 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, Maintainability of the petition without exhausting alternative remedies, Justification of impugned notice, Legal issues raised by the parties, Interference of writ court at the stage of issuance of show cause notice.Analysis:The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing and selling Portland cement, sought various reliefs through an original application, challenging the impugned notice dated 26.2.98 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Anti Evasion, Pali. The notice alleged that the petitioner refunded tax amounts to its dealers and called for an explanation regarding potential tax evasion. The petitioner contended that the provisions cited in the notice were not applicable to the case, as there was no tax avoidance or unauthorized collection involved. The petitioner argued that the issuance of credit notes to dealers for discounts did not violate any laws. The petitioner also emphasized that all relevant details were provided to the respondent, and there was no concealment of information. The petitioner supported its arguments by citing various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.On the other hand, the respondent argued against the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedies provided under the law before approaching the court directly. The respondent justified the impugned notice, stating that it was issued after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent contended that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked based on a show cause notice and relied on legal precedents to support this stance.After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the case record along with the judgments cited, the Court observed that the petitioner had not yet received a final order from the respondent due to an interim order passed by the Court. The Court noted that generally, a writ court should not interfere at the stage of a show cause notice issuance, as parties have the opportunity to present their legal issues before the concerned authorities. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue available remedies under the law and raise all legal issues before the appropriate forum after the final order by the respondent. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.