TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred and for performing the functions entrusted to him under the Act - thus, without going into the question whether the 2nd respondent is actually the assessing authority under 1987 Act or not, we are of the considered view that if there is an assessing authority, the expression “petitioners” appearing in paragraph-8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court should be construed to indicate that authority. If he is not the assessing authority, it is always open to the petitioners to raise this objection in their reply to the show cause notice. Bifurcation of the States and one out of the two units, which is indicated in the impugned show cause notice being located in another State - Held that:- Admittedly, the show cause notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, date d 07.08.2015, has been challenged separately by way of another writ petition. But it is yet to come up for hearing. Therefore, if the claims of both the Commercial Tax Officers are actually sustainable in law, assuming that they are sustainable, the petitioner can always raise a valid point that there cannot be overlap o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Supreme Court, they should pay the amounts to the State Governments. 6. Contending that the writ petitioner herein had disobeyed the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court made at the time of the final disposal of the appeals, the Commercial Tax Officer filed contempt petitions in Contempt Petition Nos. 39 to 41 of 2006, of which Contempt Petition No.40 of 2006 related to the writ petitioner herein. During the pendency of the contempt petitions, the Supreme Court thought it fit to appoint two firms of Chartered Accountants, one in respect of the petitioner herein and another in respect of another dealer, for the purpose of resolving the factual dispute as to whether luxury tax was in fact collected from the customers by the writ petitioner and the other dealers or not. It appears that the firm of Chartered Accountants appointed in relation to the petitioner herein submitted a report on 25.03.3013, recording a finding of fact that the petitioner has not collected any sum towards luxury tax for the relevant period from 01.04.1999 up to 20.01.2005. Therefore, heavy reliance was placed by the petitioner on the findings recorded by the firm of Chartered Accountants, when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a revised show cause notice dated 08.12.2016, dealing with some of the points raised in the reply and also enlisting the evidence allegedly available with him. Upon receipt of the revised show cause notice, the petitioner has chosen to come up with the present writ petition. 10. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised several contentions, we are of the considered view that the scope of our jurisdiction to deal with a challenge to a show cause notice, especially when it was issued pursuant to the liberty given by the Supreme Court, will be very limited. In normal circumstances, a challenge to a show cause notice can be entertained mainly on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we would primarily deal with two contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which revolve around the question of jurisdiction. 11. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned show cause notice is issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, who was not the petitioner before the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal and to whom alone a liberty was granted by the Supreme Court. The 2 nd contention is that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r arrears of the tax or duty on property, including arrears of land revenue, shall belong to the successor State in which the property is situated, and the right to recover arrears of any other tax or duty shall belong to the successor State in whose territories the place of assessment of that tax or duty is included on the appointed day. 16. It is the contention of Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Special Counsel attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, that even in the year 2005 amalgamation of both units, one located at Secunderabad and another located at Visakhapatnam, had taken place and that at the time of bifurcation of State there was only one unit and hence the later portion of Section 50 would apply. 17. In response to the said contention, it is argued by Mr. M.V.K. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that if the stand taken by the 2 nd respondent is correct, the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam could not have issued a separate notice on 07.08.2015 demanding one portion of the tax that would relate to the unit at Visakhaptnam. 18. It appears from the material papers filed before us that the revised show cause notice issued by the 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
