Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1097 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty - Excess of the jurisdiction conferred - Petitioner claimed that as per the provision of section 22(3)(b) of the Act read over rule 45 of the U. P. VAT Rules as existing at that time, there was no requirement of indicating the name and address of the purchaser in the cash memo, therefore, imposition of penalty amounts to harassment - Held that:- the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) had the authority to issue a notice under section 54 of the Act. The notice so issued was for the alleged violation of the provision of section 22(3)(b) of the Act. Whether or not the petitioner has violated the provision is a question of fact which can be easily explained by the petitioner before the authority concerned. Once the court finds that the authority had the jurisdiction to issue a notice, the basis on which the writ of prohibition is sought for by the petitioner disappears. The prayer for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities from proceeding in the matter is essentially based on the constitutional challenge that the authority had no jurisdiction in the matter. Once we have held that the authority had the jurisdiction to issue notice and proceed in the matter, the basis on which the writ of prohibition is sought by the petitioner disappears. It is not a case where the petitioner was being put to unnecessary harassment at the hands of the authority nor it is a case where a writ of prohibition should be issued because the authority had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. The petitioner claim that even section 22(3)(b) of the Act did not prohibit the petitioner from issuing a cash memo without the names of the purchaser is a question of appreciation which can easily be dealt with by the authority. Therefore, this court is not inclined to issue a writ of prohibition and it would be open to the petitioner to file a reply to the notices issued by the authority under section 54 of the Act and satisfy the authority that no case of penalty is made out in the light of the provisions of the Act. - Decided against the petitioner
|