Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - case of Revenue is that against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, a revision is maintainable before the High Court and, accordingly, as a statutory revision is provided, therefore, this writ petition does not lie - survival of proceeding initiated under the AVAT Act, 2003 - Section 174 (2)(f) of the Act - Held that:- It is the settled law that an appeal or a revision is generally considered to be a continuation of the original suit or proceeding. In the instant case as noticed, the proceeding against the petitioner was initiated by the show cause notice dated 07.04.2014, whereas, the later enactment being the AGST Act of 2017 came into effect on and from 01.01.2017 Therefore, it is to be concluded that on the date on which the AGST Act of 2017 came into effect, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was in place and therefore, such proceeding is saved under Section 174(2)(f) of the later enactment being the AGST Act of 2017 - In view of the clear provision of Section 174 2(f), a proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Taxes at Boxirhat Check post, continues to remain under the AVAT Act of 2003 up to the point where the Assam Board of Revenue being the Appellate Tribunal had given its final consideration. In the event, the petitioner desires the proceeding can be further continued by preferring a revision under Section 81 of the AVAT Act of 2003 or in the event, the petitioner does not desire to do so, the same comes to an end by attaining finality. The contention of petitioner that as the writ petitioner had not initiated any further proceeding, therefore, the proceeding came to an end and as such a revision is not maintainable, cannot be accepted - In the present case, the proceeding against the petitioner having been initiated under the AVAT Act of 2003, when the same was still in existence, therefore, the proceeding is saved and continues as if the AVAT Act of 2003 was not repealed. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|