Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
AAR BEE Industries - Appellant
Vs.
State and Ors. - Respondents
MP No. 02 of 2016 in OWP No. 909 of 2008, MP Nos. 1310 of 2008, 1928 of 2011, 1608 of 2010 & 01 of 2016
Decided On : 06-12-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.S. Johal, Inderjeet Gupta, J.I. Balwan
For the Respondents: Sudesh Kumar Magotra, Ajay Abrol, Subash Dutt, S.S. Wazir
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading relevant authorities or departments as necessary parties in proceedings involving claims or issues that directly concern them, especially when public money is involved.
Headnote:
VAT Reimbursement - Commercial Taxes Department Impleadment - Government Order 168-IND of 2005 - - The court discussed the necessity of impleading the Commercial Taxes Department as a party respondent in a petition seeking reimbursement of VAT. The court ordered the impleadment of the department as a necessary party for proper adjudication of the matter, considering the claim for VAT reimbursement and the positive stand of the other respondents. The court allowed the application to implead the Commercial Taxes Department as a party respondent, emphasizing the importance of the department's involvement in the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reimbursement of VAT relief amounting to Rs. 2,17,80,832.61 from January 2008 onwards based on Government Order 168-IND of 2005. The court ordered the impleadment of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as party respondents in the petition, and later allowed the impleadment of the Commercial Taxes Department as party respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impleadment of the Commercial Taxes Department as a party respondent was necessary for proper adjudication of the VAT reimbursement claim, considering the positive stand of the other respondents and the involvement of public money.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the necessity of impleading the Commercial Taxes Department as a party respondent in the petition seeking VAT reimbursement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the necessity of involving the Commercial Taxes Department as a necessary party for proper adjudication of the VAT reimbursement claim, emphasizing the importance of the department's response in relation to the claim and the involvement of public money.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application to implead the Commercial Taxes Department as a party respondent and directed the impleaded respondent to file a reply affidavit. The case was listed for consideration in the following week.
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
1. In this writ petition, following reliefs are sought by the petitioner.
(a) Issue a writ or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the VAT relief amounting to Rs. 2,17,80,832.61/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventeen Lacs Eighty thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two and paisa sixty one only) from January 2008 onwards in view of 1Govt. Order 168-IND of 2005 dated 30.6.2005.
(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 5 to make supply of inputs (Raw material) to the petitioner.
(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.
(d) Petitioner be also awarded cost of litigation.
Court order dated 25.02.2016, in view of the affidavit filed by the Managing Director, J & K SICOP, ordered for impleadment of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as party respondents in this petition.
2. Court order dated 25.02.2016 is taken note of:-
'Pursuant to and in compliance with order passed on 17.02.2016, the Managing Director, JK SICOP, herein respondent No. 4, has filed an affidavit stating clearly that the SICOP had raised bill to the petitioner/SSI unit which included cost of raw material, VAT @ 12.5% and service charges @ 0.25% and that the SICOP in turn had released the said amount including the VAT component in favour of the suppliers. In this affidavit names of the supplier have been given as M/s. S.B. Traders and M/s. Flavour International. On asking, Mr. Abrol, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5, provides full particulars of both these suppliers, which are taken on record. Besides, respondent No. 4 has also stated in his affidavit that suppliers were under an obligation to deposit the VAT component with the Commissioner Taxes Department, which they, however, have not.
Positive stand of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 clearly is that they had received the VAT component too from the petitioner in regard to the purchase of raw material by the petitioner during the relevant period and paid the same to the suppliers along with cost of the material supplied by them and their allegation is that the suppliers did not deposit the VAT component with the Commissioner Taxes Department which they were under obligation to do.
Having regard to the claim of the petitioners, who are seeking refund of the VAT component in terms of the Industrial Policy in vogue and positive stand of respondent Nos. 4 & 5, aforementioned suppliers become necessary party to this writ petition as their response is imperative for proper adjudication of the matter, more for the reason that an important question relating to State exchequer is involved. Both the aforementioned suppliers are thus impleaded as respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to this writ petition. Registry shall effect the corresponding change in the cause title showing their full particulars. Two weeks' notice to respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to be served through the District Judge, Samba.
Mr. Abrol makes a prayer for impleading Commissioner Taxes Department also as party respondent. Such prayer, however, can be considered only after a Motion in this regard is laid' List in the week commencing 21.03.2016, higher up.'
3. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 filed an application on 20.04.2016 which is registered as MP No. 02/2016 wherein they prayed that the Commercial Taxes Department through its Commissioner may be impleaded as party respondent No. 8.
4. Writ petitioner has filed objections to the said application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in order to ascertain whether the VAT has been paid to the Commercial Taxes Department, it becomes necessary to implead it as party respondent. Learned counsel further submitted in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 which is taken note of in the order dated 25.02.2016, it has been stated by the said respondent that Suppliers who are under obligation to pay the VAT and deposit the same with the Commercial Taxes Department, have not pa
