Gujarat High Court
West Coast Waterbase Private Limited & vs State Of Gujarat & on 2 May, 2016
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, G.R.Udhwani
C/SCA/7171/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7171 of 2016
==========================================================
WEST COAST WATERBASE PRIVATE LIMITED & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
UCHIT N SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 02/05/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate, for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to the determination order dated 18.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales-tax (Legal) under section 62 of the Sales Tax Act, 1969, to submit that there is a determination order in favour of the petitioner classifying prawn feed as cattle feed. It was submitted that the petitioner has been assessed in terms of the determination order since then. It was pointed out that the Commercial Tax Officer, by the impugned order dated 30.3.2016 has gone beyond the determination order passed by the higher officer by holding that prawn feed cannot be classified as cattle feed. It was submitted that under sub- section (2A) of section 80 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed May 04 03:59:03 IST 2016 C/SCA/7171/2016 ORDER 2003, it is permissible for the Commissioner to call for and examine the order passed by the Special Commissioner, Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner under sub- section (1) and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper. It was pointed out under the proviso thereto it has been postulated that the order passed by the Commissioner shall not affect the liability of any person under the Act with respect to any sale or purchase effected prior to such order. It was submitted that, therefore, even if the determination order were to be taken in revision, the order passed by the higher officer in the revision proceedings would be effective only prospectively. It was further pointed out that even on merits, the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer is contrary to the decision of this court in the matter of M/s. Chunilal Mayachand v. The State of Gujarat rendered on 20.3.1991 in Sales Tax References No. 15 and 17 of 1981.
2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, issue notice returnable on 16.6.2016. By way of the ad-interim relief, the respondents are restrained from making any coercive recovery against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.3.2016. Direct service is permitted.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) (pkn) Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed May 04 03:59:03 IST 2016