Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 651 (GAU)

BAJRANG TEA TRADING COMPANY v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-06-20

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M.Sapre, CJ) By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner – a dealer under Assam General Sales Tax Act seeks to challenge the show cause notice No. 2523 and 504 dated 2.3.2005 and 1.8.2005 issued by Respondent No. 3 in Bakijai Case No. 51/04-05/AGST. Facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The writ petitioner – a proprietary concern is engaged in the business of buying and selling the tea in Guwahati. Earlier it was a partnership firm but later after its dissolution, became proprietary concern of the petitioner. It is registered as Dealer under the provisions of Assam General Sales Tax Act. (For short hereinafter called The Act). The petitioner suffered a demand of payment of sales tax dues of Rs. 4, 20,964 for the assessment years 97-98 and 98-99 in his assessment done by the assessing authorities under the Act. He felt aggrieved of the assessment order claimed that he has filed the revision petition challenging the assessment orders before the revisionary authority which, according to him, is pending. However, since no stay was obtained by the petitioner from revisionary authority against realization of the dues/assessment order and hence the impugned demand notice was issued under the Act read with Public Demand Recovery Act by the recovery/certificate authority for realization of the outstanding dues from the petitioner. The petitioner then made an application to the Certificate Officer (Taxation), Kamrup, Guwahati (Annexure – E) who issued the impugned demand and sought adjudication of the issue or in the alternative to await the outcome of the revision (see Para 5 of the application (Annexure – E). Since no orders were passed on the application, he filed this writ petition questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned demand certificate. Notice of this writ petition was served on the respondent. They are served and duly represented. Heard Mr. S. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance appearing for the respondents. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this petition. In our considered opinion, no ground is made out to challenge the impugned demand. Heard Mr. S. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance appearing for the respondents. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this petition. In our considered opinion, no ground is made out to challenge the impugned demand. In the first place, once the assessment was framed, the remedy of the dealer/assesee (writ petitioner) lay in challenging the assessment order in revision or appeal as the case may be under the Act. If petitioner filed the revision, then he should have pursued the said remedy and brought it to its logical conclusion. If he had lost, then he had a further remedy of appeal to Tribunal and then to this Court and lastly to Supreme Court. For the reasons best known, he did not seem to have followed this course because no document was filed in the writ petition to show that any revision was filed and if so what was its outcome. So far as the proceedings in question are concerned, they are in the nature of recovery proceedings of the State dues recoverable from the defaulting assessee/dealer as arrears of revenue under the Public Demand Recovery Act. If assessee/dealer fails to pay the dues payable under the Act then recovery certificate has to be issued under the Act. In these proceedings, neither the certificate officer and nor this court can examine the merits of the petitioner’s liability which as stated above can be gone into only in the proceedings arising out of the assessment such as in revision or/and appeal. As stated above, the petitioner was not able to inform the court as to what was the outcome of his revision, if claimed to have filed against the assessment order. We, therefore find no error- whether jurisdictional or/and factual in issuing the impugned demand certificate by the certificate officer. It was issued on the strength of assessment orders of two assessment years which determined the petitioners liability to pay the sales tax. No fault thus can be found in the same. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner made sincere attempt to argue by raising some issue but we are not impressed by his submissions. They do not need any elaboration. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is found to be devoid of merit. No fault thus can be found in the same. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner made sincere attempt to argue by raising some issue but we are not impressed by his submissions. They do not need any elaboration. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is found to be devoid of merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the interim order dated 20.01.2006 is recalled/vacated. No cost.