2001 (3) TMI 1013 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under Article 226 for quashing assessment order and demand notice.
2. Treatment of glass bottles as an independent commodity for tax assessment.
3. Challenge to assessment order based on precedent and alleged mala fides.
4. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Act.
5. Application of the rule of alternative remedy in tax matters.

Issue 1:
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to quash the assessment order and demand notice issued by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The petitioner also sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the assessing authority.

Issue 2:
The assessment order created a demand based on treating glass bottles as an independent commodity for tax assessment. The petitioner challenged this treatment, arguing that the bottles used as containers for liquor should not be taxed separately.

Issue 3:
The petitioner contended that the assessment order was void, citing a previous court decision and alleging mala fides on the part of the assessing authority. The petitioner argued that the authority had ignored established legal principles and acted unlawfully.

Issue 4:
The court considered whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner argued that Article 226 does not bar the court from entertaining a writ petition despite the existence of an alternative remedy.

Issue 5:
The court analyzed the rule of alternative remedy in tax matters, citing precedents that emphasize the importance of following statutory procedures. The court highlighted that where statutory remedies are available, the High Court should not bypass them in favor of Article 226 jurisdiction.

The court emphasized that while Article 226 does not limit the High Court's jurisdiction, self-imposed limitations exist based on public policy. The court noted the evolution of rules restricting the entertainment of writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy is available, especially in tax matters. Citing precedents, the court highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures for challenging assessments.

The court rejected the argument that the assessment order was contrary to established legal principles, stating that the assessing authority had objectively considered the petitioner's arguments. The court emphasized that the appellate authority could review the decision, but this did not justify bypassing the statutory appeal process.

Regarding the burden of the appeal process, the court cited Supreme Court decisions to support the position that the availability of an alternative remedy should be followed. Despite the nature of the case, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy of appeal within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following statutory remedies in tax matters and directing the petitioner to pursue the available appellate process.