2021 (7) TMI 174 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - violation of constitutional provisions and in violation of the Act - HELD THAT - The appellate authority is the Tribunal constituted and the appeal is to be preferred under Section 86 of the Indian Evidences Act, 1994. The importance of the appellate remedy can never be undermined and the petitioner has to exhaust the same as the mixed question of fact and law are to be considered by the appellate authority, who is the final fact finding authority - Preferring an appeal is the rule. Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy. However, it is to be ensured that there is an imminent threat or gross injustice warranting urgent relief to be granted. Mere violation of principles of natural justice is insufficient to entertain a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as every Writ Petition is filed based on one or the other ground stating that the principles of natural justice is violated or statutory requirements are not complied with or there is an illegality or otherwise. The High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry with reference to the facts and circumstances, based on the documents and evidences. Based on the mere affidavits filed by the litigants, the disputed facts cannot be concluded. Thus, the importance of fact finding by the appellate forums is of more value for the purpose of providing complete justice to the parties approaching the Court of law - The point of delay may be an acceptable ground for the purpose of entertaining a Writ Petition. The practise of filing the Writ Petition without exhausting the statutory remedies are in ascending mode and such Writ Petitions are filed with a view to avoid pre-deposits to be made in statutory appeals and on the ground that the appellate remedies are time consuming. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority, by preferring an appeal in a prescribed format, following the procedures contemplated, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on violation of constitutional provisions and Act; Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting appellate remedy; Power of judicial review under Article 226; Importance of appellate authorities in fact-finding; Practise of filing Writ Petitions without exhausting statutory remedies.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a Writ Petition seeking to quash an assessment order passed by the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the order violated constitutional provisions and the Act. However, it was noted that the petitioner did not challenge any provisions of the Act itself in the Writ Petition, focusing solely on the assessment order. The court emphasized that mixed questions of fact and law should be addressed by the appellate authority, in this case, the Tribunal under Section 86 of the Indian Evidences Act, 1994. It was highlighted that the appellate remedy should be exhausted before resorting to a Writ Petition, as appellate authorities are the final fact-finding bodies.

The judgment underlines that the power of judicial review under Article 226 is meant to scrutinize the decision-making process, not the decision itself. It cautions against routinely entertaining Writ Petitions without exhausting the appellate remedy, as this could undermine the importance of appellate institutions and the hierarchy of the legal system. The court stressed that appellate forums are crucial for fact-finding, possessing expertise in specific fields, and their findings are valuable for judicial review under Article 226.

Regarding the practice of filing Writ Petitions without exhausting statutory remedies, the judgment notes an increasing trend, often to avoid time-consuming appellate processes. The court acknowledged that delay could be a valid reason for entertaining a Writ Petition, but emphasized the importance of following prescribed procedures and exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

In conclusion, the court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within two weeks by filing an appeal in the prescribed format. The appellate authority was instructed to consider any such appeal, condone any delays, and adjudicate the matter on its merits promptly. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and respecting the role of appellate authorities in the legal process.