Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2191
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Dilip Gupta, J.
M/s. Emami Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Ors. - Respondent
Writ Tax No. - 314 of 2014
Decided On : 15-05-2014
For the Petitioner:- Rahul Agarwal.
For the Respondents:- C.S.C.
Court declines to issue direction to Assessing Officer in provisional assessment proceedings
Headnote:
Provisional Assessment - Writ Petition - Court declines to issue direction to Assessing Officer regarding finalization of provisional assessment orders - Controversy regarding definition of 'drugs and medicines' - Petitioner granted conditional stay in appeal - Writ petition dismissed
Fact of the Case:
Proceedings for provisional assessment pending - Petitioner seeks writ to refrain Assessing Officer from finalizing provisional assessment orders on certain products
Finding of the Court:
Court declines to issue direction to Assessing Officer - Petitioner has remedy upon finalization of provisional assessment orders - Writ petition dismissed
Issues: Controversy regarding definition of 'drugs and medicines' - Petitioner's conditional stay in appeal
Ratio Decidendi: Court declines to intervene in provisional assessment proceedings - Petitioner has remedy upon finalization of assessment orders
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Admittedly, proceedings for provisional assessment are pending. The relief which has been sought in these proceedings is to the following effect: -
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to refrain from proceeding with and finalizing provisional assessment orders against the petitioner on the sale of (i) Himani Navratna Oil and (ii) Himani Boroplus Advanced Moisturizing Lotion which have been held as Drugs & medicines falling under amended entry 41 of UP VAT Act, 2008 as per direction of First Appellate authorities and also not proceeding with and finalizing provisional assessment orders on sale of Himani Boroplus antiseptic cream till a final decision is taken by the respondent No.3 in the remand proceedings in respect of the said product."
2. In our view, it would not be appropriate and proper for this Court to issue a direction to the Assessing Officer either not to proceed with the finalisation of the provisional assessment orders or for completing the provisional assessment in a particular manner. The petitioner has relied upon the directions of the first appellate authority and submits that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to follow those directions. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Revenue that by a notification dated 11 October 2012, the expression 'drugs and medicines' has been defined to exclude medicated soap, antiseptic and face-creams among other things.
3. We are not inclined to enter upon this controversy at the present stage. The petitioner has a remedy open to it upon the finalisation of the provisional assessment orders. The fact that the petitioner has been granted only a conditional stay in the appeal, is no reason for this Court to entertain the writ petition at this stage when the provisional assessment is under consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to urge all appropriate contentions before the Assessing Officer including those which are raised in the writ proceedings.
4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
