2019 (9) TMI 674 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternate efficacious remedy of appeal - section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - Section 26 of the said Act provides for an alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner can avail of the alternative remedy of appeal. Even the issue of breach of natural justice is an issue which could be considered by the Appellate Authority, if that be factually so. There is no reason to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the Act - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Availability of alternative remedy under section 26 of the Act - Breach of natural justice in passing the order.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with a petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 for the financial year 2013-14. The court noted the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under section 26 of the Act. The petitioner sought time for the case, which was initially listed for dismissal due to the existence of the alternative remedy.

The court observed that despite being aware of the scheduled dismissal date, the petitioner's counsel requested multiple adjournments, leading to delays and a change in representation. The court expressed disappointment in the conduct of the petitioners and their advocates for seeking time repeatedly without valid reasons. The new advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the order was passed in breach of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the report relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

The court, however, found the argument regarding breach of natural justice to be an afterthought, as it was not raised earlier in the petition or brought to the attention of the adjudicating authority. Emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under section 26 of the Act, the court concluded that the issue of breach of natural justice could be considered by the Appellate Authority if necessary. Therefore, the court held that there was no justification to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy was accessible to the petitioner under the Act.

Consequently, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition, highlighting the importance of utilizing available legal remedies and addressing grievances through the established appellate processes rather than seeking extraordinary intervention by the court.