Case Law Details
K. Devamani Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court)
In the present case, the petitioner has filed this petition to seek quashing of notification vide number G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 27.05.2020 issued by the Secretary to Government (Finance), Government of Puducherry invoking Section 31 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 increasing the rate of tax payable in respect of Petrol and Diesel and fixing the same at 28% and 21.8% respectively.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the amendment made under G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 27.05.2020 constitutes an excess of power insofar as the provision invoked, Section 31, only provides for the reduction of the tax rate by notification and not an increase, which is what has been done in the present case. They have increased the tax rate of petrol and diesel from 22.5% and 18.5% to 28% and 21.8% respectively and this increase, according to the petitioner, could only be made by amendment of the schedule under Section 75. However, since the procedure set out under Section 75 required presentation of the Bill seeking amendment, deliberation and passing thereof by the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry, a cumbersome and time consuming procedure in the best of times, the Union Territory has proceeded to adopt the easier but erroneous procedure set out under Section 31.
High Court states that, the rates of tax on petrol and diesel have been altered across the board and ostensibly, ‘in public interest’. The notification does not refer to or address a specific class of assesses/transactions and no conditions are imposed upon satisfaction of which the amended rate would apply. A general and omnibus alteration to the rate of tax of this nature would have to be effected only by way of amendment to the Schedule itself under Section 75 and not by issuance of a Notification under Section 31 of the PVAT Act. Though the 2017 amendment to the rate of petrol and diesel from 21.5% and 17.15% to 22.15% and 18.15% respectively was also only by way of Notification under Section 31 and was in force till the present impugned amendment, this does not per se invalidate a subsequent illegitimate and unauthorised levy. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that acquiescence in an illegal tax, for however long a period, is not a ground for denying an assessee relief, where it is established that the levy was invalid or illegitimate in the first place. Though the validity or otherwise of a levy has to be tested on the basis of the relevant provision in the local laws only, HC find, on an examination of the relevant provisions in the Value Added Tax statutes of New Delhi, Gujarat, Assam, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Punjab that, the procedure for amendment of schedule is more or less in pari materia with Section 75 of the PVAT Act. Except for some differences in detail, the amendment of schedules in the VAT enactments extracted above, uniformly require that the notification for amendment once made, be placed before the House within the timeframes stipulated therein for deliberation and ratification. It was thus incumbent upon the respondents to have followed the proper procedure for amendment of schedules set out under Section 75 of the PVAT Act and the invocation of Section 31 in the above circumstances is contrary to law. In the light of the discussion as above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Notification quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
I like this article.