2014 (6) TMI 129 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Alternative remedy available - Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 - Held that - in view of remedy available to the petitioner under Section 9A of the Act of 1950 before the Excise Commissioner/Tax Board within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of the order, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. As the petition is pending before this Court and interim protection has been granted to the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with the observations that in case petitioner files an appeal before the competent appellate authority, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority on merit as expeditiously as possible after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of filing of appeal. The interim protection granted to the petitioner shall remain in currency till decision of the appeal. It is also observed that appellate authority shall consider the prayer for reduction of penalty imposed against the petitioner in the impugned order sympathetically - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 - Availability of alternative remedy under Section 9A of the Act - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner under Sections 69 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950, which required a deposit of Rs.2,50,000 for the release of a seized vehicle carrying contraband. The petitioner contended that the case against them was false, seeking to quash the order. The Court, after an interim order for depositing Rs.2,00,000, considered the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 9A of the Act, allowing appeals to the Excise Commissioner or the Division Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board. The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court examined Section 9A of the Act, outlining the appellate and revision process, emphasizing the finality of decisions by the Excise Commissioner or the Tax Board, subject to possible revision. The provision required proof of payment for a significant portion of the demand created by the appealed order. The Court reiterated the principle that while writ jurisdiction is not absolutely barred when alternative remedies exist, it should be sparingly exercised. In this case, since an efficacious remedy was available under Section 9A, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue an appeal before the competent appellate authority within one month. The Court directed the appellate authority to decide on the appeal expeditiously, granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The interim protection granted by the Court would continue until the appeal's decision. Furthermore, the appellate authority was instructed to consider any plea for reducing the penalty imposed on the petitioner sympathetically and in accordance with the law.