2018 (12) TMI 1285 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - grievance of the petitioner is that the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax passed the impugned order dated 19.3.2018 confirming the show cause notice without considering the various submissions made by the petitioner in its reply dated 17.3.2018 - Held that - There is an efficacious alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 19.3.2018. The Appellate Authority would necessarily examine all the grievances of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Thus, there is no reason to entertain this petition - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under MVAT Act based on breach of natural justice, consideration of submissions by Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, availability of alternate remedy under Section 26 of MVAT Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 19.3.2018 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, alleging a breach of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the Dy. Commissioner confirmed the show cause notice without adequately considering the submissions made in response. On the other hand, the respondent argued that there was no breach of natural justice and that the petitioner's submissions were duly considered in the impugned order. The respondent also pointed out that an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act was available to address the petitioner's grievance.

The court noted the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act. The court emphasized that the Appellate Authority would thoroughly examine all the grievances raised by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court found no justification to entertain the present petition due to the existence of an alternative remedy through the appellate process.

However, recognizing the petitioner's bona fide challenge to the impugned order before the court, the judges clarified that if the petitioner were to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, specifically the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), within two weeks from the date of the judgment, the appeal would be considered on its merits. This decision was made in acknowledgment of the petitioner's genuine pursuit of the challenge in court by filing the petition. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of based on the aforementioned terms.