TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond respondent determined the tax liability of the petitioner in W.P. No. 17663 of 2005 at Rs. 3,55,03,413 and at Rs. 4,62,08,770 in W.P. No. 17664 of 2005. The orders were duly served upon the petitioners on August 14, 2003 together with demand notice, calling upon the petitioners to pay the said amount of tax within 30 days from the date of service of notice. The petitioners were duly put on notice that failure to comply with the demand shall result in coercive measures to recover the tax due. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, the petitioners filed appeals under section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the Act ) before the third respondent, inter alia, contending that the determination of taxable turnover and levy of tax thereon is incorrect, baseless and untenable. The third respondent vide proceedings dated September 15, 2003 having scrutinised the appeals preferred by the petitioners on September 13, 2003 found that the appeals have been presented without payment of 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax, as is required under the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Act and accordingly directed the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second respondent having accepted that the investigation by the department also revealed that the purchases claimed by the dealers are fictitious, ought not to have proceeded to tax the sales turnover by disallowing the claim of the petitioners for grant of exemption. Shorn of all the details, the case set up by them is that the transactions are nominal in their nature without there being any transfer of goods and hence no tax can be imposed by the department. It is submitted that the purchases made by the petitioners from a number of registered dealers were already assessed by the respective assessing authorities and all such sales by the suppliers are nothing but the purchases of the petitioners. The case set up by them is, when the sales at the hands of the suppliers were assessed, it is not correct on the part of the second respondent in disbelieving the said purchases by the petitioners and consequently the sales effected by them. Those sales are required to be considered as second sales on which no tax is liable to be paid inlaw. The sales at the petitioners hands cannot be considered as liable to tax at the hands of the petitioners. There cannot be a sale without a corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in these writ petitions. The third respondent vide proceedings dated September 15, 2003 while pointing out the defects, required the petitioners to deposit amounts equivalent to 12.5 per cent of the disputed tax as is required under the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Act. The third respondent clearly put the petitioners on notice that in the absence of such payment, the appeals preferred by them cannot be entertained for their disposal on merits. The petitioners filed writ petitions to declare the second proviso to section 19(1) of the Act which requires the dealer to produce proof of payment of 12.5 per cent of the difference of tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted, for the relevant assessment year in respect of which the appeals are preferred. This court having admitted the writ petitions did not pass any interim orders. Thereafter, the third respondent vide the orders dated November 27, 2003 rejected the appeals which were impugned by way of separate miscellaneous applications. This court vide its orders dated November 15, 2005See page 476 supra. dismissed the writ petitions as well as the miscellaneous applications. The order passed by the thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution. But then, the court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. (emphasis Here italicised. is of ours) In Sales Tax Officer v. Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta [1965] 16 STC 599; AIR 1966 SC 142 the Supreme Court decried the practice and tendency on the part of the assessees to rush to the High Court after an assessment order is made and administered caution that the High Courts should not encourage such practice. It is observed that the High Courts may entertain the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution in respect of taxing matters, after an assessment order has been made, only in very exceptional circumstances. The court further observed (page 605 of STC): It was not the object of article 226 to convert High Courts into original or appellate assessing authorities whenever an assessee chose to attack an assessment order on the ground that a sale was made in the course of import and therefore exempt from tax. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that they would have had to deposit sales tax, while filing an appeal. Even if this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
