9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated March 16, 2010 and consequently forbearing the respondent from denying to issue the statutory C form to the petitioner. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the application for interim stay is set out hereunder: (a) The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products and the dealership was granted by the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner is regularly assessed to tax and has been paying the same. The assessment orders were passed without furnishing a copy of the statement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, which formed basis of the order and against which, appeals have been filed before the appellate authority. While so, the respondent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory form. The petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent for personal hearing and thus, C form licence was refused to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, challenging the order of the respondent dated March 16, 2010 has come up with the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent is bound to issue C form licence to the petitioner and the same cannot be denied by the respondent without any justification. Even assuming that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax and even assuming that the petitioner has misused C form licence, the same cannot stand in the way of the respondent issuing C form licence to the petitioner. In this connection, the learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. On the one hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire admitted tax due to the Department was paid by the petitioner and it is borne out by the additional typed set filed by the petitioner. However, it is denied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the amount due by the petitioner is set out in the impugned order dated March 16, 2010. Thus, there is a disputed question whether the petitioner has paid the tax as alleged by him or the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that still the amount is payable by the petitioner. This question can be answered when the writ petition is taken up for final di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oration to stop supply to the petitioner. Thus, the said writ petition came to be allowed on April 13, 2009. When the respondent can proceed against the petitioner for non-payment of tax or the penalty, absolutely, the respondent has no power to deny C from licence to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on section 43 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (in short "the Act"). The said provision reads as follows: "43. Withholding issue of statutory forms and seizure of goods.- 1) Notwithstanding that any recovery proceeding initiated under this Act, the assessing officers or any other officers authorised in this regard, shall have power to withhold issue of statutory or other declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of the tax liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of, or successor to, such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, refunds, rebates, penalties charging or payment of interest, compounding of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly: Provided that if in any State or part thereof there is no general sales tax law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in this behalf make necessary provision for all or any of the matter specified in this sub-section." H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect basis. Hence, the decision cannot stand. In any event, this court had repeatedly held that article 226 should not be permitted to be invoked in order to challenge show-cause notices unless accepting the fact in the show-cause notices to be correct, either no offence is disclosed or the show-cause notices are ex facie without jurisdiction. That could not be said as far as the eight show-cause notices in question are concerned. The High Court, therefore, should not have interfered and should have left the respondents to pursue their remedy by way of an appeal under section 9 of the Act from the order of assessment which, according to the High Court, had admittedly been passed before the writ petition had been filed by the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
