2014 (3) TMI 607 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of request for Issuance of C form declaration on the ground of arrears of tax and penalty maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy is available - Held that - The impugned order was passed on 8 September 2010. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 6 October 2010. Therefore it is clear that even before the expiry of the period prescribed for filing statutory revision the petitioner has approached this Court and as such opportunity should be given to file a revision petition. - Judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax & others Versus Chhabil Dass Agarwal 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT followed - The petitioner is given time till 21 March 2014 to file a revision petition before the Commissioner Commercial Tax Officer Puducherry - Writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of request for "C" form declaration due to arrears of tax and penalty.
2. Applicability of statutory remedy in case of rejection of request.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner, a dealer in petroleum products, had their registration certificate cancelled for non-payment of tax and penalty, which was later renewed by the Court. The petitioner requested "C" forms for forwarding to the oil Corporation, but the request was rejected solely based on non-payment of tax and penalty. The assessing authority had specified the tax and penalty amounts for the relevant years. The rejection of the "C" form request was challenged in the writ petition, contending that it was unjustified due to arrears of tax and penalty.

Issue 2:
The writ petition challenged the rejection of the "C" form request, which was revisable under Section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act. The assessing officer mentioned the option of filing a revision petition before the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Officer, Puducherry. The Supreme Court precedent emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through a writ petition. The Court cited previous judgments highlighting the rule of self-imposed limitation on entertaining writ petitions when an alternative statutory remedy is available. However, the Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule, such as instances of non-compliance with legal provisions or principles of natural justice.

Further Analysis:
The Court considered whether directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy after entertaining the writ petition was justified. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Court noted that even if a writ petition is admitted, it could still be dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy. In this case, the petitioner filed the writ petition shortly after the impugned order, indicating that there was sufficient time to file a revision petition within the statutory period. Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner time to file a revision petition before the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Officer, Puducherry by a specified date, emphasizing the importance of utilizing the statutory remedy available.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner an opportunity to file a revision petition within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the significance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions, in line with established legal principles and precedents.