2013 (4) TMI 695 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment under section 27(3) of the VAT Act - whether is without any jurisdiction and against the statute? - Held that - In the present case, the petitioner was called upon to file objections to the impugned revision notice. Without filing objections, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the notice is contrary to the earlier assessment. The petitioner ought to have filed objections and thereafter, if any final order is passed, the petitioner can work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. Now, it is too premature to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file its objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under VAT Act for tea business, alleged adulteration of tea, jurisdiction of respondent to revise assessment, principles of natural justice in invoking jurisdiction under article 226.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered tea dealer under the VAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, reported a turnover for the assessment year 2007-08, paying tax at four per cent. The respondent accepted the turnover but later alleged adulteration based on an inspection, proposing to revise the assessment under section 27(3) of the VAT Act and impose tax at 12.5 per cent. The petitioner argued that the tea quality could be verified under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and that the impugned notice lacked jurisdiction and was against the statute. The petitioner contended that the original assessment should be accepted if the tea met PFA standards.

The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner sold adulterated tea based on inspection findings, justifying the proposed revision under the residuary entry No. 69 of Part C of the First Schedule to the VAT Act. The respondent issued a revision notice to levy tax at 12.5 per cent. The Government Advocate claimed that the petitioner should have objected to the proposal instead of filing a writ petition, which was deemed not maintainable.

The court noted the petitioner's registration under the VAT Act and CST Act for tea business and the acceptance of turnover for the assessment year 2007-08. An inspection revealed alleged adulteration, prompting the revision notice proposing a tax rate of 12.5 per cent. The petitioner challenged the notice, citing the respondent's failure to inquire into the matter before proposing the revision. The court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice and the need for the petitioner to file objections before seeking court intervention.

The court highlighted that invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India required adherence to principles of natural justice and the exhaustion of available remedies. The petitioner was directed to file objections within two weeks, with the respondent instructed to consider them and pass appropriate orders within four weeks while maintaining status quo. The court emphasized the need for due process and the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.