2017 (3) TMI 153 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - whether the appeal deserves to be decided on merits, when the alternative remedy is available? - Held that - when the appeal is not to be entertained on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy, this Court would refrain from making any observation on merits, for the simple reason that any observations made by this Court on merits would prejudice the rights of the parties before the Appellate Authority having appellate power - If the observations are made and the appellant herein is to be relegated to the statutory remedy of preferring the appeal, it would be illusory remedy, since when the matter is already considered by this Court and Appellate Authority which is lower forum is in normal circumstance bound by the observations made on merits by this Court - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order dated 14.11.2016, availability of alternative statutory remedy, observations made by the learned Single Judge on merits, discretion of the Court regarding observations on merits, liberty to prefer appeal, chargeability of VAT, influence of observations on the Appellate Authority, coercive steps.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a series of appeals challenging an order passed by a Single Judge. The appellant sought to withdraw the appeals with the intention to reserve the right to avail statutory remedies without prejudice to their contentions. The learned Additional Government Advocate acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal and expressed concerns about the potential prejudice caused by the observations made by the Single Judge on merits. The Court recognized the existence of a binding precedent from the Apex Court and emphasized the importance of not making observations on merits that could impact the rights of the parties before the Appellate Authority.

The Court refrained from making any observations on merits to prevent prejudicing the rights of the parties during the appeal process. It was highlighted that allowing observations on merits could render the statutory remedy illusory, as the Appellate Authority would be bound by the Court's observations. Therefore, the Court decided that any observations made by the Single Judge on merits should not stand to ensure the appellant's liberty to independently pursue the appeal without being influenced by previous observations.

In the final order, the Court granted the appellant the liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned assessment within four weeks. It explicitly stated that the observations made by the Single Judge should not be interpreted on merits regarding the chargeability of VAT. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the matter independently on merits in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any previous observations. Additionally, it was ordered that no coercive steps should be taken for a period of four weeks from the judgment date. Finally, the appeals were disposed of, and any pending applications were also considered disposed of.

This detailed analysis of the judgment demonstrates the Court's careful consideration of the appellant's right to appeal, the impact of observations on merits, and the need to ensure a fair and independent review of the case by the Appellate Authority.