TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding the subject transaction to be an intra-State purchase exigible to tax under Section 3(10)(b) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act. 2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that all the petitioners are registered dealers carrying on business outside the State of Uttarakhand. They, however, procured menthe oil, from farmers / agriculturists within the State of Uttarakhand, through their commission agents. Since the appellants, in these four appeals, were not subjected to assessment by the Assessing Authority, and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the notice, it is unnecessary for us to take note of the contents of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. 3. The appellants-writ petitioners, through their commission agents, purchased mentha oil and peppermint oil from agriculturists/farmers in the State of Uttarakhand. It was their case, in the writ petition filed by them, that, in terms of the agreement executed by them with their commission agents, the agents were required to purchase the specified quantity of mentha oil, at the prevailing market rate, as intimated by the principal from time to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself, after hearing the petitioners in each of their cases. The matter was sent back to the Assessing Authority to hear the petitioners. The interim order passed earlier was vacated, and the petitioners were permitted to file their reply, to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority, within 45 days from the date of the order; and, till then, no coercive measures were to be taken against the petitioners. The learned Single Judge made it clear that the petitioners were at liberty to place all pleadings and arguments, as they had done before the Court in the writ petition, before the concerned authority in order to support their case. Aggrieved thereby the present appeals. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order in SPA No. 54 of 2014 dated 14.3.2014, granted stay of the judgment and order under appeal; and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the appeal was heard. As a result of the interim order passed by the Division Bench, the Assessing Authority has not taken any further action pursuant to the notice issued by him under Section 28(2) read with Section 25(6) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act 8. Before us Sri S.K. Posti, learned Counsel for the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the intention to move the goods outside the State, it would then amount to an inter-State sale, and the intention of the seller is wholly irrelevant; in terms of the proviso to Section 3(10), the Assessing Authority can only proceed against the commission agent, and not against the principal; while the commission agent can recover the tax, if any, levied on him by the Assessing Authority, from the principal, that did not confer any power on the Assessing Authority to issue the notice to the principal, who was carrying on business outside the State, and to subject him to tax under Section 3(10)(b) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act; Section 3(D) of the U.P. Trade Tax is in pari materia with Section 3(10) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, and in the light of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Hanuman Trading Company, 1979 (43) STC 408, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. & Others v. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti & Others, (1992) 3 SCC 750, the impugned show-cause notice is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 9. Shri S.K.Posti, learned Counsel, would rely on the judgments of the Supreme Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n agent on behalf of a principal carrying on business outside the State, it must be borne in mind that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Hanuman Trading Company, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. & Others v. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti & Others, was in a revision preferred before the High Court by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the revisional order passed by the Revisional Authority setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority. The view taken by the Sales Tax Officer was upheld in appeal, but in revision it was held in favour of the assessee. It is on the basis of the facts, as noted in these orders, did the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court examine the question whether or not the transaction was an inter-State falling within the ambit of Section 3(a) of the CST Act. The observations, by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, in Hanuman Trading Company were made on the revisional authority referring certain questions of law for the opinion of the Allahabad High Court, and not in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 28, Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh: (1996) 1 SCC 327, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore: (2001) 10 SCC 639 and Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra: (2006) 12 SCC 33), particularly when the petitioner has an effective remedy under the Act itself. (State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd.: (2007) 11 SCC 363). But these are limitations imposed by the Courts on themselves in exercise of their jurisdiction and are not matters of jurisdictional factors. (Union of India v. Hindalco Industries: (2003) 5 SCC 194). It would, ordinarily, not be proper or appropriate that the initial jurisdiction of the authority/Tribunal to deal with jurisdictional facts should be circumvented and the decision, on such a preliminary issue, sought before a High Court in its writ jurisdiction. (Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v . Workers: AIR 1963 SC 569, Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy). However, the self-imposed restrictions on the High Court not to entertain a writ petition, if another effective and efficacious remedy is available, will not operate as a bar where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. (Wh....