TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act read with rule 44 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules indicating therein the complete name and address of the seller. However, while issuing a cash memo to an individual it is not necessary to indicate the name and address of the purchaser on the cash memo. It transpires that a survey was made at the premises pursuant to which a survey report dated January 29, 2009 was submitted. According to the petitioner nothing incriminating was found in the said survey inasmuch as the entire records were found to be duly recorded and the books of accounts was found to be duly computerized and all entries were found to be recorded. It was contended that even in the survey report it was recorded that a tax invoice was issued when a sale was made to a registered dealer and a sales invoice was issued whenever a sale was made to an unregistered dealer and that no name or address of the purchaser was recorded when a sale was made to an individual in the cash memo. Based on this survey report, the authority issued a notice under section 45(10) of the Act directing the dealer to show cause why an adverse inference should not be drawn on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er at the hands of the authority. Consequently a writ of prohibition was filed to prevent the authority from proceeding in the matter. The learned counsel submitted that under law, namely, section 22(3)(b) of the Act read with rule 45 of the Rules the requirement to mention the name and address of the purchaser was only with regard to issuance of tax invoice or a sales invoice and that there was no such requirement to mention the names and address of the purchaser in the cash memos. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, it would be appropriate to refer to section 22(3)(b) and rule 44(2) and rule 44(6) which are extracted hereunder: "S. 22. (3) Every registered dealer, who is liable for payment of tax on sale of any- (a) Non-VAT goods and who realizes tax from the purchaser, shall, while making sale of such goods, issue to the purchaser, a sale invoice in the prescribed manner containing such particulars as may be prescribed, and shall charge separately on such sale invoice the amount of tax; or (b) Taxable goods except non-vat goods and makes sale of such goods to a dealer other than a registered dealer, shall, while making sale of such goods t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o indicate the name and address of the purchaser even in the cash memo. Consequently, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that since there was no provision to indicate the name of the purchaser and his address in the cash memo, the assessing authority exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the notices under section 54 for imposition of penalty. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Dr. Gaurhari Singhania v. Wealth-tax Officer [1986] 159 ITR 785 (All); [1986] UPTC 114 on the issue that a writ of prohibition could be issued under article 226 of the Constitution of India where such action of an authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 STC 446 (SC); AIR 1955 SC 661 where the Supreme Court held that writ of prohibition could be issued whenever a subordinate court or Tribunal usurps jurisdiction which does not belong to it. The Supreme Court further held that when such usurpation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....necessary for the petitioner to indicate the name of the buyer under section 22(3)(b) read with section 45 of the Rules so that the loss of revenue was safeguarded. Having heard the rival contention of the parties, we are of the opinion that a writ of prohibition can be issued to an authority from continuing with the proceeding on the ground that the proceeding is without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction conferred to it or is contrary to the laws of the land if the authority has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. A citizen including the petitioner is entitled to an issue of a writ of prohibition in order to save himself from unnecessary harassment at the hands of such authorities. However, such writs should be exercised with caution and in exceptional matter especially when it is found that the authority has usurped the jurisdiction of another authority or is acting without any authority of law. In Thirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu [2003] 8 SCC 134, the Supreme Court held as under: "14. On the basis of the authorities it is clear that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs, including a writ of prohibitio....