9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) allow the above original application; (b) quash the impugned notice dated 26.2.98 (Annex.2 & 3) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Anti Evasion, Pali (respondent); (c) restrain the respondent from taking any further proceedings/action in pursuance of his impugned show cause notices or pass any orders in pursuance thereof; (d) grant such further relief/reliefs which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and (e) award costs of this original application." 2. The petitioner is a public limited company registered under Companies Act and having its registered office at Jaykaypur, District Rayada, Orissa and its said Lakshmi Cement Division (petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) to its dealers out of collections of tax during the years in question and adjusted the amount in subsequent months, and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the tax amount be not forfeited and penalty for evasion be not imposed. The petitioner filed a preliminary objection to the impugned notice on 23.03.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice was served under Section 28 of the Act of 1994, which provides for provisional assessment in case of avoidance or evasion of tax; while doing so, an assessing authority determines taxable turnover of the dealer on which tax has been avoided or evaded or has not been paid according to law, which is not the case herein, and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (a) Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs Motor Industries Com. (1983) 2 SCC 108; (b) M/s Universal Cylinders Limited Vs The Commercial Taxes Officer (Civil Appeal No. 2431/2018, decided on 23.02.2018); (c) M/s Southern Motors Vs State of Karnataka & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10955-10971/2016, decided on 18.01.2017); (d) M/s IFB Industries Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (Civil Appeal Nos. 2516-2517/2012, decided on 27.02.2012) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf on the petitioner, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable because there is an alternative remedy available to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot maintainable. 4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments :- (a) Union of India & Ors. Vs Coastal Container Transporters Association & Ors. (2019) 20 SCC 446; (b) State of Punjab Vs M/s Shiv Enterprises & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 359/2023, decided on 16.01.2023) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court; (c) Union of India Vs Bajaj Tempo Ltd. & Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 281; (d) Genpact India Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8945/2019, decided on 22.11.2019) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court; (e) M/s Fine Mineral Industry Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7943/2007, decided on 18.01.2022) passed by this Hon'ble Court. 5. Heard learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
