TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a law abiding person and wants to pay the tax but only in accordance with law which is leviable upon the goods of the petitioner. The petitioner is asked to pay the tax at 14 per cent and upon finding this situation, he submitted his petition before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi seeking clarification with respect to the tax payable on purchase and sale of "spare parts, accessories and components" of earth moving machineries pursuant to aforesaid notification by submitting application dated May 26, 2011. It is admitted fact that no adverse orders have been passed against the petitioner and the petitioner's own case is that whenever tax is demanded at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Pipe Co. Ltd. reported in [1977] 39 STC 355 (SC); [1977] 2 SCC 724 and in the case of Union of India v. State of Haryana reported in [2000] 10 SCC 482. At the outset, we may observe that there are provisions for obtaining advance ruling under the other statutes like Income-tax Act as well as Central Excise Act. No such provision is in the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. In the said Act, power has been given to the adjudicating authority to decide such issue which has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Admittedly the petitioner has paid the tax at 14 per cent though with condition without affecting his rights but at the same time he did not get the issue adjudicated from the adjudicating authority. Therefore, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplete relief if the court merely declares the existence of such right or the fact that that existing right has been infringed. Where there has been only a threat to infringe the right, and order commanding the Government or other statutory authority not to take the action contemplated would be sufficient. It has been held by this court that where there has been a threat only and the right has not been actually infringed an application under article 226 would lie and the courts would give necessary relief by making an order in the nature of injunction. It will hardly be reasonable to say that while the court will grant relief by such command in the nature of an order of injunction where the invasion of a right has been merely threatened, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court is that "another is the nature of controversy of facts and law that may have to be decided as regards the availability of consequential relief". Here in this case, admittedly yet the issue has not been decided so as to draw inference that the petitioner has been saddled with illegal tax liability by even original authority after rejection of the petitioner's plea and, furthermore, is that the petitioner has already paid the tax at 14 per cent, though with protest but has not raised and contested the issue before the adjudicating authority. In another case of Union of India v. State of Haryana [2000] 10 SCC 482, the tax was duly assessed and without availing of remedy of the appeal, the Union of India preferred wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and questions of law should be decided in one lis by one authority and this principle is required to be followed in a case where the authority constituted under the act is not debarred from deciding any question like about constitutional validity of any act or rule, etc. This would be in consonance with normal rule of law to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In this case petitioner wants determination of question of law from this court even when the other authorities under the act are competent to decide this issue and more particularly when the original adjudicating authority yet even has not taken a contrary view, not in petitioner's own case nor in any other matter much less to taking a contrary view by any higher authority to the a....