2006 (7) TMI 592 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
2. Alleged violation of the principle of natural justice by the assessing authority.
3. Requirement to supply materials/evidences on which the show cause notices were based to the assessees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court Under Article 226:
The appellants challenged the fresh assessment orders under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, claiming violation of natural justice. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions due to the availability of an alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal. The appellants argued that the writ court could exercise jurisdiction even if an alternative remedy existed, especially in cases of jurisdictional errors, enforcement of fundamental rights, or violations of natural justice. The court acknowledged that while the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226, it typically refrains from exercising it when an alternative remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

2. Alleged Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the assessing authority violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the materials/evidences on which the show cause notices were based. They argued that without these materials, they could not effectively respond to the notices. The court noted that the principle of natural justice requires that individuals be given an effective opportunity to respond to allegations. However, the court also emphasized that whether such materials need to be supplied should be decided by the statutory authority, as it involves factual adjudication.

3. Requirement to Supply Materials/Evidences:
The appellants requested the materials/evidences on which the show cause notices were based, arguing that the absence of these materials rendered the reassessment orders invalid. The court held that the necessity of supplying such materials should be determined by the appellate authority. The court did not express an opinion on whether the assessing authority was obligated to provide these materials, leaving it for the statutory authority to decide.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the learned single judge was correct in refusing to entertain the writ petitions due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy exists unless there is a clear violation of natural justice on the face of the order. The court dismissed the writ appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments and upholding the learned single judge's decision. The court also refrained from expressing an opinion on the necessity of supplying materials/evidences, leaving it to the statutory authority to decide in the appeal process.