- (1.) WE have heard Sri S.D. Singh, the learned senior counsel along with Sri Amit Mahajan and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Special Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of electronic products and imports its products from outside the territory of India. The goods are brought into the State of Uttar Pradesh and stocked in a warehouse located at NOIDA in U.P. from where the stocks is alleged to be transferred to other branches of the petitioner located in other states. For the purpose of stock transfer, the petitioner has been transferring the goods to other States during the months of April, May and June, 2015. In this regard, petitioner was required to submit necessary Form -C and Form F issued from the respective authorities of other States where the goods were transferred. Since the forms were not submitted within the stipulated period of three months, a show cause notice dated 5.10.2015 under Section 25(1) of the U.P. VAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was issued to show cause why the provisional assessment should not be made. The petitioner submitted its reply and also filed an application dated 15.10.2015 for extension of time. The Assessing Officer without considering the application for extension of time passed three provisional assessment orders dated 28th October 2015 for the months of April, May and June, 2015. The petitioner, being aggrieved, with these provisional orders has filed the present writ petition for its quashing. A preliminary objection was raised by the State contending that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 55 of U.P. VAT Act and, therefore, the Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN support of his submission, the Special Counsel for the State has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Untied Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others : (2010) 8 Supreme Court Case 110 wherein the Supreme Court has held that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute should be availed of instead of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.;