Chattisgarh High Court
Mohd. Nooh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 July, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPT No. 22 of 2016
1. Mohd. Nooh S/o Late Mohd Siddique Aged About 65 Years
Proprietor Of M/s Mohd Nooh Mission Hospital Road, Tehsil And
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2. Mohd Altaf S/o Mohd Nooh, Aged About 40 Years Prop Of M/s
Ashma Natural Products Mission Hospital, Road Tehsil And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3. M/s Ashma Enterprises Mission Hospital Road, Tehsil And District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Pankaj Kumar Agrawal S/o Bajrang Lal Agrawal. Aged About 46
Years Director Of M/s Kalpana Natural Forest Products Mission
Hospital Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5. Ganesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Hanuman Prasad Agrawal Aged About
38 Years Partner Of M/s G.V. Natural Forest Products, Sarkanda
Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Trading Development
Co-Operative Federation Through Its Managing Director, A-25, V I
P Estate, Khamhadih, Shankar Nagar, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, Vikray Kar Bhawan, Civil Line,
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Anup Majumdar and Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi on behalf of Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ju stice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 19/07/2022
1) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition assailing the Page 2 of 3 order Annexure P/4 dated 10.02.2016 by which the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Co-operative Federation Limited, Raipur started recovery of commercial tax against the petitioners. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners have challenged the order of recovery. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court and against which SLP was also filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2006 and analogous appeals vide order dated 17.07.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"3. In view of the above, we permit the appellant along with the District Forest Officer to participate before the assessing authority and produce all such relevant documents and also the case laws on the point to demonstrate that the transactions were completely inter - state sales and not intra
-state sales. We further direct the assessing authority to consider the documents and also look into the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel to arrive at a proper conclusion.
4. We are informed that when demands were made by the assessing authorities and also the District Forest Officer for payment of tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act") the appellant herein had furnished the bank guarantees. Shri Bagaria, on instructions, would submit that those bank guarantes are kept alive. If that is so, we now permit the assessing authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu to encash the bank guarantees towards the payment of tax dues by the appellant. If, for any reason, the appellant succeeds before the assessing authority, the excess amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them within the statutory period and if the same is not paid within the said period, the excess amount will carry the statutory interest."
2) Thereafter, the assessing authority has assessed the commercial tax and agaisnt that appeal has been preferred and now reference has also been made. Since, the matter is being taken cognizance of by competent forum formulated under the Value Added Tax, the writ petition is not maintainable.
3) Accordingly the Writ Petition (T) is dismissed. This is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merit of the case. The authorities who have seized with the matter shall apply their mind and decide the case in accordance with law.
Page 3 of 3Consequently, Interim Relief earlier granted is also stand vacated.
-Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh