IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19404 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.12.2008 Global Mobile Infrastructure Private Limited -----Petitioner Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. K.L.Goyal, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of assessment order dated 8.10.2008, Annexure P.9. 2. Business premises of the petitioner-assessee were inspected on 15.4.2008 and after checking the record, it was found that the petitioner had received certain payments from M/s Spice communications Limited as security. The assessee was asked to explain. The stand of the assessee was that security was in respect of goods supplied on trial basis and there was no sale of goods. The payments received did not represent turnover and no sale was CWP No.19404 of 2008 involved. The Designated Officer under the provisions of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, as applicable to Chandigarh, made an order of assessment, holding that transactions were not shown in the quarterly return and as per agreement, to provide telecommunication equipment for 24 months for which 25% price was to be paid on demand and 75% was to be paid in four instalments, it appeared to be a case of sale against deferred payment. The agreement to transfer the goods on trial basis was infact sale of goods and thus, transaction of sale was involved. It attracted tax. Demand of about Rs.85 lacs was created for one year and about Rs.6 crores for the other year. 3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that no sale was involved and at best, deemed sale to the extent of transfer of right to use was involved, for which only a part of the sale value could be taken to be representing the charges for right to use, we are of the view that such questions cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, particularly, when an alternative remedy is available. 4. In view of this observation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition to take alternative remedy. 2 CWP No.19404 of 2008 5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to any other remedy in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, it is pointed out that the demand of about Rs.7 crores being heavy demand and there being some disputed questions particularly as to the quantum of liability, appeal of the petitioner may be entertained without requiring the entire amount to be deposited. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue points out that there is no provision for waiver below 25% of the demand. 8. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct that appeal of the petitioner be entertained on payment of 15% of the amount of demand. If the appeal is filed within two weeks from today, the same may not be treated as barred by limitation. 9. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 9, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3