M/S Sika INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the Rajasthan Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, is a complete code providing remedies against assessment orders, and Section 23 thereof vests wide powers in the appellate authority. The Court found that the remedy of appeal under Section 23 is not only alternative but equally efficacious, capable of examining all grounds, including the plea of limitation under Section 12(6). The Court noted the petitioner's conduct, including the delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent writ petition, and the submission of a representation after approximately two years. Furthermore, the Court observed that the matter involved disputed questions of fact, such as the date of service of the assessment notice and the applicability of statutory exceptions to the limitation period, which are best adjudicated by the assessing authority and not in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court did not examine the merits of the rival contentions, including the plea of limitation, leaving them open for the appellate authority. The amounts already recovered and deposited were to be treated as compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 23(3), subject to the appellate authority's verification. The prayer for refund was also left open for the appellate authority to decide. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of the order, along with an application for condonation of delay, which the appellate authority was directed to consider in accordance with law, taking into account the time spent prosecuting the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sika India Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an assessment order dated 18.12.2018 and a consequential demand notice dated 02.04.2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner/Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle-XI, Jaipur. The demand of Rs. 21,24,470/- was for entry tax, interest, and penalty under the Rajasthan Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, read with the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Out of the total demand, Rs. 7,35,709/- was recovered by attaching the petitioner's bank account, and Rs. 13,88,761/- was deposited by the petitioner under protest. The petitioner also sought a refund of the recovered amount. The petitioner filed a representation on 24.12.2020, which remained unaddressed, leading to the present writ petition filed on 16.01.2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 18.12.2018, passed under Sections 12, 34A, and 35 of the Rajasthan Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 12(6) of the Act of 1999, considering the relevant financial year was 2015-16? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 12(6) of the Act of 1999 for making an assessment from the end of the relevant year. They also contended that no notice for assessment was received within the prescribed period, rendering the order without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on Section 12(6) of the Act of 1999. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999. They argued that the petitioner failed to avail this remedy within the stipulated thirty days, even though they were aware of the proceedings and the order. The respondents also raised the issue of delay and laches, noting the significant gap between the assessment order (18.12.2018) and the filing of the writ petition (16.01.2021). They further contended that no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice was demonstrated, as a show cause notice was served.