2015 (11) TMI 1867 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - validity of assessment orders passed by the respondent - HELD THAT - This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter and decide the same as this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy. Even otherwise the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel in KALYANI OIL MILLS VERSUS THE STATE OF MADRAS 1973 (1) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT cannot be pressed into service at this stage as a perusal of the said decision would also show that the assessee therein after suffering an order of assessment went on appeal before the appellate authority and further before the Tribunal and thereafter only came before this Court where the above said order came to be passed. These writ petitions are dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy without expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by the writ petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging assessment orders passed by the respondent; Entertaining writ petitions without exhausting statutory remedy of appeal; Maintainability of writ petitions due to availability of alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The High Court considered writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the respondent. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court could intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court noted that resorting to filing writ petitions without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal is not permissible in fiscal matters. The Court cited various decisions to support this principle. It emphasized that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the assessment orders. The Court previously dismissed a similar writ petition on the same grounds, stating that the writ was not the proper remedy when an appeal option existed. The Court highlighted that the competent authority had provided a hearing to the petitioner before passing the assessment order, and any objections could be raised in an appeal, not in a writ petition. Therefore, the assessment order, having been passed by the competent authority after due process, could not be questioned under Article 226.

The Senior Counsel referred to a Division Bench decision to support the merits of the matter. However, the Court declined to delve into the merits, emphasizing that the writ petition's maintainability was the key issue due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court noted that the decision cited by the Senior Counsel involved the assessee going through the appellate process before approaching the Court. Therefore, the Court concluded that the present writ petitions were not maintainable solely because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed based on the availability of the alternative remedy, without expressing any view on the merits raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the statutory authority within four weeks, and the original order was to be returned to the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.