TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. R. Mahadevan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T.P. Manoharan, Special Government Pleader (P) on behalf of the respondent, the court made the following order: The petitioner has come up with 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 took steps to stop the supply of fuel from the Indian Oil Corporation which made the petitioner to approach this court by filing the writ petition in W.P. No. 6110 of 2009 and the same was allowed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice. Only if a final order is passed, the petitioner, after preferring an appeal, could approach this court invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the judgment in State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar Ramesh Chandra Glass Works [2006] 145 STC 656 (SC); [2005] 11 SCC 451 and also the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ansal Papers v. State of U.P. [2009] 20 VST 727 (All). Further, the learned counsel for the respondent drawn my attention to section 43 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (Act 9 of 2007) and also section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That apart, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is in huge arrears of tax and also he has misused C form licence, which made the respondent to cause the impugned proceedings dated March 16, 2010. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order of the respondent dated March 16, 2010 does not call for any interference by this court. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mahadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent. On the one hand, it is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 forms to a dealer from whom any tax or penalty, interest or any other amount payable under this Act is due. (2) . . . Thus, the above referred provision makes it very clear that in any recov ery proceedings initiated under that Act, the assessing officer or any other officer concerned has power to withhold the issuance of statutory or other declaration forms. However, there is no such provision under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, drawn my attention to section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Clause (2) of section 9 reads as under: 9. Levy and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of the petitioner. When such power is vested with the respondent, there is no rhyme or reason in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of C form licence to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, as stated already, relied upon the decision in State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar Ramesh Chandra Glass Works [2006] 145 STC 656 (SC); [2005] 11 SCC 451 for the proposition that judicial review is very very limited, if there is a challenge to the show-cause notice, under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder (page 658 in 145 STC): In our view, the High Court proceeded on an 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, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
