2003 (9) TMI 736 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenges to assessment orders under Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for different assessment years. Existence of alternative legal remedies and the bar to entertaining writ applications.

Analysis:
The High Court of Patna dealt with three cases challenging assessment orders under section 17(2) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for different assessment years. The court noted that the remedy of appeal and revision was available to the petitioners against the impugned orders. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that due to the availability of an effective remedy of appeal, the writ applications could not be entertained.

The petitioners contended that the questions involved were purely legal, and therefore, the existence of an alternative remedy should not bar the court from entertaining the writ applications. They cited various judgments to support their argument, emphasizing that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.

The court acknowledged the settled law that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but the adequacy of legal remedy is a crucial factor to consider. It was highlighted that if the vires of the Act is challenged, the order is without jurisdiction, or the issue is fundamental in nature, the court may interfere despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

In the present case, the court considered the controversy regarding whether the assessment orders were passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court noted that factual matters needed to be examined to determine if the orders were consistent with the principles of natural justice.

The main issue in these cases revolved around the tax rate applicable to the petitioner's product and the stage at which the tax should be levied. The court opined that these questions should be addressed by the appellate authority, as the writ applications should not be entertained solely based on the availability of alternative legal remedies.

Ultimately, the court refused to interfere with the impugned orders and directed the petitioners to file appeals or revisions as advised. It was clarified that certain instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had been set aside by the Court, and the petitioners could not raise bias claims based on those instructions.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of all three writ applications, emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative legal remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.