Back
Relegates Sika India to Appeal Against Entry Tax Assessment
JAIPUR – – A Division Bench of the , comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar, has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by challenging an entry tax assessment order dated . The court held that the under is “” and that the dispute involved questions of fact unsuitable for resolution in .
The Assessment and the Challenge
Sika India, a company engaged in manufacturing waterproofing, thermal, and acoustic insulation products, was assessed under the 1999 Act for the . On , the Assistant Commissioner/Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle XI, Jaipur, passed an assessment order raising a demand of Rs. 21,24,470, comprising entry tax (Rs. 15,35,846), interest (Rs. 5,83,624), and penalty (Rs. 5,000). The company challenged the order primarily on the ground of limitation, arguing that prescribes a two-year period from the end of the relevant year for making an assessment, and that the order dated 18.12.2018 was passed beyond that period. It also claimed that no notice of assessment was received within the limitation period.
State’s Objection and the Court’s Analysis
The respondents, including the and the , raised preliminary objections, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious by way of appeal under Section 23 of the Act. They also pointed to delay: the assessment order was passed in , but the writ petition was filed only in , after the company submitted a representation in .
The court agreed with the respondents. Examining Section 23, it observed that the appellate authority enjoys wide powers — it can confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, or even set it aside and direct a fresh assessment. “Every ground now urged before us, including the ground of limitation under Section 12(6), can effectively be urged before, and examined by, the appellate authority,” the Bench noted. “The remedy of appeal is, therefore, not only alternative but .”
Beyond Writ Court
The court further noted that the controversy involved factual disputes — whether the assessment notice was issued and served within the prescribed period, the date of service, and whether any statutory exceptions applied. “In the exercise of our under , we are not in a position to adjudicate such on the basis of of the parties,” the judgment stated. “The writ court neither records evidence nor tests the veracity of rival factual assertions.”
The court also addressed the delay, but left the question of condonation open for the appellate authority. It clarified that the long pendency of the petition did not cure the inherent limitation of the writ court in resolving factual issues.
Pre-deposit Satisfied, No Further Recovery
Importantly, the court noted that the entire demand of Rs. 21,24,470 had already been realized — Rs. 7,35,709 was recovered through attachment of Sika India’s bank account, and Rs. 13,88,761 was deposited by the company under protest. The court directed that these amounts be treated as compliance with the under , subject to verification by the appellate authority. It further ordered that no further recovery shall be effected during the pendency of the appeal, if filed within thirty days from the date of the order.
Disposition and Liberty to Appeal
The court disposed of the writ petition, granting Sika India liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 23, along with an application for . “If such an appeal is filed within a period of thirty days from today, the appellate authority shall consider the application for in accordance with law, keeping in view the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present petition before this Court,” the Bench ordered.
All contentions on the merits, including the plea of limitation, were left open for the appellate authority to decide uninfluenced by any observations made in the judgment.
