2014 (2) TMI 1147 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - Alternate remedy - Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Since disputed questions of fact are involved, the petitioner should avail of the alternative remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Designated Officer. - We are not inclined to entertain this petition against the assessment order as it does not fulfil any of the broad outlines noticed in assessee's own previous case 2012 (1) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - we refrain from interfering with the assessment order and dispose of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of order passed by Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner
2. Violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction in tax levy
3. Enforcement of recovery of tax, interest, or penalty
4. Assessment order under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005
5. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal against the order
6. Entertaining writ petition without insisting on adopting statutory remedies
7. Discretionary nature of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an order passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, alleging violations of natural justice and jurisdiction in tax levy under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act and the CST Act, was involved in project works in various states, including Punjab. The assessment order raised additional demands, penalties, and interest, leading to the petition challenging the order's validity.

2. The High Court observed that disputed questions of fact were involved in the matter. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the principles where a writ petition can be entertained without insisting on adopting statutory remedies. It emphasized that the petitioner should avail of the alternative remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Designated Officer, as provided by law.

3. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's observations, the High Court reiterated that where disputed questions of fact are raised in writ proceedings, a writ petition may not be the appropriate remedy. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and outlined guidelines for exercising such jurisdiction, including the presence of an adequate alternative remedy and the absence of disputed questions of fact.

4. In conclusion, the High Court refrained from interfering with the assessment order and disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. The court's decision was based on the availability of an alternative remedy through the statutory appeal process, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures in challenging assessment orders.