2000 (5) TMI 1051 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of assessment dated November 16, 1998, passed by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
2. Contention regarding the efficacy of the remedy of appeal.
3. Precedential value of Tribunal decisions in different cases.
4. Comparison with previous cases like Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana.
5. Decision on whether to entertain the petition under article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the order of assessment dated November 16, 1998, passed by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, seeking a fresh decision. The petitioner had the option to appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 39 of the Act, followed by a reference to the High Court. However, these remedies were not pursued before approaching the High Court directly under article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner argued that the remedy of appeal was not efficacious due to a contrary view taken by the Tribunal in another case. Citing various judgments, the petitioner contended that pursuing the appeal would be futile as the Tribunal's decision in a different case would bind the authorities below. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that each assessment year is separate, and the Tribunal's decision in one case does not bind the authorities in another case. Statutory remedies should not be circumvented unless entirely unsuitable for extraordinary situations.

3. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal's decision in a different case does not act as a precedent binding on other cases. The petitioner was advised to pursue the statutory remedies available under the Act rather than bypassing them and directly approaching the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Previous cases like Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana were discussed to differentiate the present case. In Filterco's case, the exercise of appeal was deemed futile due to the hierarchy of authorities, unlike the current scenario. Jindal Strips' case was considered where the writ petition was entertained due to exceptional circumstances, which did not apply here.

5. Considering the availability of alternative efficacious remedies under the Act, the Court dismissed the writ petition and advised the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal within the prescribed period. The Court refrained from entertaining the petition directly under article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in revenue matters.