Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3262/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3262 of 2011
=========================================================
PRABHAT
SOLVENT EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES PVT LTD & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KH KAJI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR
MANISH K KAJI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 3,
MS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 24/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, New Delhi (for short, ‘the
Appellate Authority’), by order dated 6th August 2010,
decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 20 of
the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said
appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Value Added Tax
Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
The
Appellate Authority, referring Section 6A of the Act and the other
provisions, the facts of the case and the decision of the Supreme
Court, by its order dated 6th August 2010, upheld the
imposition of tax.
It
appears that at this stage, the petitioner moved before the Supreme
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35734/2010. The said
petition was withdrawn on 11th February 2011 with a
liberty to move before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court directed that if the
petitioner files a writ petition, the High Court may consider the
same on its own merits.
The
present writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to allow the
first petitioner to produce evidence before the Central Sales Tax
Authorities to establish that the goods were despatched on
consignment basis and not by way of interstate sale. In the
alternative, validity of Section 6A of the Act is also challenged.
After
arguments on the question of validity of Section 6A of the Act and as
the Court was, prima facie, not inclined to accept such submission,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner will not desire to challenge the validity of Section
6A of the Act. On the other reliefs, the case may be heard.
In
that view of the matter, while we hold that the prayer to challenge
the validity of Section 6A of the Act is not pressed and that the
writ petition to that extent is closed, allow the petitioner to
pursue other prayer before the appropriate Court.
Post
the writ petition before the Bench hearing Sales Tax (Admission)
matters on 1st April 2011.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
CJ.)
(J.B.Pardiwala,
J.)
/moin
Top