TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured in the petitioner's sugar mill through its selling agents. It is submitted by Shri Krishna Ji Agrawal that 90% of the non-levy sugar is sold by the sugar mill through its selling agents under agreement. The entire sugar is sold to the selling agents at the factory gate and thus there is no question of entry of the non-levy sugar into any local area for attracting levy of entry tax. He further submits that since the petitioner is not liable to collect and deposit entry tax, there is no question of imposition of penalty under Section 12 (3) of the Act, and consequently the notice is without jurisdiction. On 13.5.2011 following interim order was passed in this writ petition:- "Petitioner raises two contentions, which are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealer. 15. That with regard to the contents of paragraph nos.26 and 27 of the writ petition it is submitted that the impugned notice only relates to penalty u/s 12 (3) of the Entry Tax Act, the mention for initiation of provisional assessment is only a kind of warning. 16. That with regard to the contents of paragraph nos.28 to 30 of the writ petition it is submitted that the averments made in para under reply can also be made before the assessing officer in response to the impugned notice who shall pass suitable order after proper examination of the nature of transaction. 17. That the contents of paragraph nos.31 and 32 of the writ petition are wholly misconceived and wrong hence are denied. Impugned notice clearly says that on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawal that the questions framed by this Court are covered by the judgment of this Court in Mawana Sugars Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Ors., 2013 NTN (Vol.52) 137 in which this Court concluded as follows:- "36. The question now arises is the relief to which petitioner is entitled to. In the case of M/s East India Commercial Co. Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893, the Apex Court was called upon to adjudicate on the validity of proceedings initiated by the Collector of Customs for confiscation of goods and for taking penal action. The Apex Court by its majority judgment held that in case facts stated in the show cause notice are assumed to be correct and even then, the authority issuing notice lacks jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences." 38. Thus the Apex Court held that though the Income Tax Officer who has issued the notice was not acting judicially or quasi judicially and therefore a writ of prohibition cannot be issued but by issuing a writ of mandamus he can be prohibited from proceedings any further in the matter. Same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Union of India and another Vs. M/s Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd, JT 1993 (3) SC 403. 39. In the ....