Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1801 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction to entertain petition - Validity of assessment order - levy of Purchase Tax - purchase of goods by commission agents on behalf of petitioners (principal) - intra-State purchase or not - Section 28(2) read with Section 25(6) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act - applicability of Section 3(10)(b) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act - HELD THAT:- Issuance of a show-cause notice contemplates that the response shall be considered and only thereafter will the matter be decided. The person asked to show cause has, therefore, full opportunity to satisfy the authorities that no action should be taken against him - The purpose of issuing a show-cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing and, once cause is shown, it is open to the authority to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed and only, thereafter, can a final decision be taken in the matter. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature. Jurisdiction to entertain petition - HELD THAT:- Ordinarily, a writ court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same, inter alia, appears to have been issued without jurisdiction - In very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction. A showcause notice does not give rise to any cause of action as it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party. It is quite possible that, after considering the reply to the show-cause notice, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the allegations are not established. A show-cause notice does not infringe the rights of anyone. It is only when a final order, otherwise adversely affecting a party, is passed that the said party can be said to have any grievance. The jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not be permitted to be invoked in order to challenge a show-cause notice unless, accepting the facts in the show-cause notice to be correct, the show-cause notice is, ex facie, without jurisdiction, i.e., the notice is ex facie a ‘nullity’ or non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into the facts or totally “without jurisdiction” in the traditional sense of that expression - i.e., even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on the face of it, and without anything more, is totally unauthorised. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party shows cause before the authority concerned and takes up the objection regarding jurisdiction therein. The learned Single Judge has also, without expressing any opinion on merits, relegated the appellants-writ petitioners to the remedy of filing a reply to the show-cause notice. Interference, in an intra-Court appeal, would be justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. The order under appeal does not suffer from any such infirmity - Appeal dismissed.
|