2019 (10) TMI 1518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....#39;s writ petitions against the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 under Section 22 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the VAT Act'). 2. Two issues came up for consideration before the writ Court. Firstly; whether a writ petition against the assessment order is maintainable; and secondly; on merits, as to whether in absence of assessment order passed in original assessment proceeding as the same was a deemed assessment under Section 21 (2) of the VAT Act and levy of penalty under Section 22 (2) of the VAT Act is justified. 3. Brief facts, on the subject, are that for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 the assessee submitted its return along with the audit report and other statutorily require....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., would refer to the judgments relied before the writ Court to reiterate the submission that the writ petition challenging the re-assessment order is maintainable. 7. In the cases before the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount (supra), A. Raman (supra) and Jeans Knit (supra) the issue was whether a writ petition challenging the re-assessment notice under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is maintainable. In none of the judgments the issue as to whether a writ petition would lie directly against the assessment or re-assessment order has been dealt with. On the contrary the Supreme Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) has held thus in paras 15 and 16 :- 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana {(1985) 3 SCC 267} this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility." 8. Again in Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v Vijaybhai N. Chandrani 2013 AIR SCW 4675 the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions rendered in Bellary Steels and Alloys Limited v Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Assessments) and Others  (2009) 17 SCC 547   and Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v ITO (2002) 10 SCC 444 and held thus in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16:- 14. In our considered view, at the said stage of issuance of the notices under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions reached by the High Court and dismissed the said appeal with the following observations: "5. This and the other facts cannot be taken up for consideration by this Court for the first time. In our opinion, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that it is appropriate for the appellants to file a reply to the showcause notice and take whatever defence is open to them." 16. In the present case, the assessee has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court at the first instance without first exhausting the alternate remedies provided under the Act. In our considered opinion, at the said stage of proceedings, the High Court ought not have entertained the Writ Petition and instead should have directed the assessee to fi....