M/S.Zunaid Enterprises & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

M/S.ZUNAID ENTERPRISES & ORS. ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH C.A.NOS.2289-2313/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.13206-13230/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2314-2332/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.13721-13739/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2333-2338/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.13789-13794/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2339-2341/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.13837-13839/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2342-2362/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.13848-13868/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2363-2392/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.23669-23698/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2396-2397/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.19785-19786/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2398-2406/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.19470-19478/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2407-2429/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.23631-23653/2011

WITH C.A.NO.2430/2012 @ SLP(C)NO. 27388/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2431-2440/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.28156-28165/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2441-2449/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.29189-29197/2011

WITH C.A.NOS.2450-2453/2012 @ SLP(C)NOS.6980-6983/2012

O R D E R

SLP(C)NOS.13206-13230/2011:

Respondent nos.10-12 are deleted from the array

of parties, at the risk of the petitioner(s).

1

SLP(C)NOS.13721-13739/2011:

Respondent nos.10-12 are deleted from the array

of parties, at the risk of the petitioner(s).

SLP(C)NOS.13837-13839/2011:

Respondent no.5 is deleted from the array of

parties, at the risk of the petitioner(s).

SLP(C)NOS.13848-13868/2011:

Respondent nos.13 and 17 are deleted from the

array of parties, at the risk of the petitioner(s).

SLP(C)NOS.23669-23698/2011:

Respondent nos.5-13 are deleted from the array

of parties, at the risk of the petitioner(s).

SLP(C)NOS.23631-23653/2011:

Respondent no.4 is deleted from the array of

parties, at the risk of the petitioner(s).

SLP(C)NOS.28156-28165/2011:

Respondent no.3 takes notice through learned

counsel. Respondent nos.11,12,13,16,17,19,24,27 to

2

30 and 36 are deleted from the array of parties, at

the risk of the petitioner(s).

SLP(C)NO.27388/2011:

Learned counsel appears and accepts notice on

behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.

SLP(C)NOS.29189-29197/2011:

Learned counsel appears and accepts notice on

behalf of respondent no.3. Respondent nos.4 & 5 are

deleted from the array of parties, at the risk of the

petitioner(s).

1. Delay condoned in SLP(C)Nos.6980-6983/2012.

2. Leave granted in all the Special Leave

Petitions.

3. The Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Product

(Trading & Development) Co-operative Federation

Limited ('the Federation' for short) had initiated

the tender process for sale of Tendu leaves, which

are minor forest produce. One of the condition that

was stipulated in the tender documents was that the

highest bidder whose bid is accepted, has to remit

3

the taxes under the VAT Act to the State Government.

4. The appellants herein are successful bidders.

When they were demanded to pay the taxes under the

VAT Act, they thought it fit to approach the High

Court by filing a petition/appeal under Article 226

of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking a writ in

the nature of mandamus to the respondents/revenue to

treat the sales, made by the Federation in favour of

the appellants as purely inter-state sale and,

therefore, not exigible for the levy of tax under the

VAT Act. They had also sought for incidental and

ancillary prayers in the writ petition.

5. The High Court, after hearing the learned

counsel for the parties to the lis, merely relying

upon certain clauses in the tender documents, has

proceeded to hold that the purchase of tendu leaves

by the appellants is pursuant to the tender process

initiated by the Federation and in view of a

particular clause in the tender documents, the

assessees are liable to be taxed under the VAT Act.

The reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High

Court is flawed by the appellants in these Civil

4

Appeals.

6. We have heard Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants and other

learned counsel appearing for other appellants in

these appeals and learned counsel for the State of

Chhattisgarh.

7. At the outset, we intend to remark that in these

type of cases, the High Court ought not to have

entertained the writ petition(s)/writ appeal(s) filed

under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. We say so

for the reason, that, particularly a transaction is

under the Central Sales Act, intra-state sales or

inter-state sales are mixed questions of fact and

law. Those facts requires to be brought to the notice

of the Assessing Authority by the appellants and it

is for the assessing authority to come to a

conclusion, based on those facts whether a particular

transaction is intra-state sales which is exigible to

the taxes under the VAT Act or inter-state sales, as

envisaged under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax

Act read with Section 6 of the charging provisions

therein. It is after such adjudication, the matter

5

can travel from one stage to the other as provided

under the Act.

8. In the instant case, as we have already stated,

the relevant factors were not before the Court nor

the finding of the assessing authority to decide

whether the transactions in question are intra-state

sales or inter-state which are exigible to taxes

under the VAT Act or taxes under the provisions of

the Central Sales Tax Act. Merely based on certain

clauses in the agreement, in our opinion, the High

Court ought not to have decided that the transactions

in question would be purely and simply inter-state

sales and not intra-state sales, as contended by the

appellants, who are dealers in tendu leaves. In that

view of the matter, we cannot sustain the orders

passed by the High Court.

9. In view of the above, we set aside the orders

passed by the High Court and now we direct the

appellants/assessees in these cases to file their

monthly/annual returns before the assessing authority

within a month's time from today. We also

direct the assessing authority to adjudicate upon the

6

returns so filed in accordance with law after

affording opportunity of hearing to the

appellants/assessees. Till such proceedings are

completed, the assessing authority(s) are restrained

from issuing further demand notices to the

appellants/assessees. We also make it clear that the

amounts deposited by the appellants/assesses, during

the pendency of other writ petitions/writ appeals

before the High Court or during the pendency of the

Special Leave Petitions before this Court, shall not

be demanded to be refunded to them. The assessing

authority(s) shall decide the issue and shall

complete the adjudication process within two months'

time from the date of filing of the returns by the

assessees, uninfluenced by the observations made by

the High Court.

10. In such of those cases where the assessees have

already filed their monthly/annual returns, the

assessing authority is directed to complete the

assessments, if not already done. Liberty is also

reserved to the appellants/assesses to file the

appeal(s) before the appellate authority within the

time prescribed under the statute.

7

11. The appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no

order as to costs.

Ordered accordingly.

...................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 23, 2012

8