2006 (5) TMI 468 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and validity of the assessment order and demand notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority in levying sales tax. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 45 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for filing an appeal against the assessment order.

Analysis:

The petitioner-firm challenged the legality and validity of the assessment order and demand notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that they were illegal, without jurisdiction, and violated the principle of natural justice. The respondent-State, in its counter-affidavit, denied these claims, stating that the assessing authority had jurisdiction to make the assessment order for the levy of sales tax in accordance with Section 17 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the relevant year. The State argued that there was an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 45 of the Act through an appeal process, which the petitioner had not utilized despite being given opportunities for a hearing.

The High Court examined the relevant documentary evidence, including affidavits and counter-affidavits, and considered the provisions of the Act. The court addressed the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in passing the impugned assessment order. The court found that while the petitioner's argument might seem compelling, it was not convincing. The court emphasized that if a party is aggrieved by an assessment order, they have the right to appeal, as provided under Section 45 of the Act. The court noted that errors of judgment or misinterpretations could be addressed through the appellate process, rather than through a writ petition challenging jurisdiction.

The court highlighted that the assessing authority's order, though subject to potential errors, could not be deemed as lacking jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the appellate forum was better suited to address issues of misinterpretation or factual disputes. The court noted that the writ court should not interfere when an alternative statutory remedy is available to the assessee, as it is a settled proposition of law. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the court decided not to intervene when an efficacious statutory alternative remedy existed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in levying sales tax, emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through the appellate process under Section 45 of the Act, and declined to interfere through a writ petition when such statutory redressal was accessible to the petitioner.