LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present petition filed under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated November 11, 2013, annexure P1 passed by respondent No. 2 -Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Designated officer, Mohali, whereby the tax has been levied on such transactions which are assessable under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") in the State of Punjab from where the movement of goods has originated. Prayer has also been made for directing the respondents not to enforce recovery of any tax, interest or penalty in view of the impugned order. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in construction business, undertaking execution of works contract of divisible and indivisible nature of different customers, including in the State of Punjab from its principal place of business located at SCF 63, Phase 3B -2, Mohali. It is registered both under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, "the PVAT Act") and the CST Act. It has been regularly filing returns as prescribed under the statute. The petitioner having effected supply and sale inter -State transaction under the CST Act to the clients, reported the turnover vide form 1 and claimed exemption from levy of tax being transit sales as well as supported by C forms and E1 certificates issued by clients/out -station vendors, respectively. The assessing authority however, sought to undertake an exercise of conducting assessment invoking section 29(2) of the PVAT Act and directed the petitioner to appear on different specific dates. The petitioner filed a consolidated statement of turnover under vide letter dated August 16, 2013, annexures P4 and P5. A show -cause notice dated September 9, 2013, annexure P6 was issued directing the petitioner to respond the same by September 19, 2013, including on a proposal to impose penalty under section 53 of the PVAT Act. The petitioner replied to the said notice vide letter dated September 17, 2013, annexure P7. The assessing authority -respondent No. 2 after examining the matter passed the impugned order dated November 11, 2013, annexure P1, whereby a huge additional demand of more than Rs. 55 crores which includes penalty and interest has been raised. The exemption as claimed on such inter -State sales turnover was disallowed holding that there could not be any such transaction in respect of client order to be of works contract nature. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a number of documents before respondent No. 2 to prove each and every aspect of the contract but inspite of that, the impugned order has been passed. Hence the present petition.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) THE following are the broad principles when a writ petition can be entertained without insisting for adopting statutory remedies: