2021 (7) TMI 1043 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious alternate remedy - bar on appeal/objection against the impugned order - order has been passed giving effect to the order of this Court - Seeking refund alongwith interest - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that the present case does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, as an efficacious alternative remedy is available with the petitioner under Section of 74 of DAVT Act. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality like violation of principle of natural justice or of fundamental rights in the impugned order. The Court had merely directed the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Since the Court has not decided the matter on merits, the impugned order cannot be said to be giving effect to the order of this Court. Therefore, objections against the impugned order will not be barred by Section 79(1)(j) of DVAT Act - writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal/objection.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of interest on refund of principal amount under DVAT Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order denying interest on the refund of the principal amount under the DVAT Act. The petitioner sought direction for releasing the interest accrued as per Section 42(1) of the DVAT Act. The petitioner argued that the impugned order disregarded the principle of judicial discipline, citing a previous judgment. The petitioner contended that interest should accrue from a specific date based on the objections being decided in their favor. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 74(1) of the DVAT Act. The respondent also disputed the petitioner's claim of technical glitches in filing DVAT-21. The petitioner emphasized that relegating to appellate remedy would be unjust, citing legal provisions barring appeal against certain orders.

The petitioner further argued that the impugned order had legal and jurisdictional defects, emphasizing that relevant judgments and statutory provisions were not considered. The petitioner raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the officer passing the order and highlighted discrepancies in the authority to hear objections. The respondent presented a work allocation indicating a new Objection Hearing Authority equivalent in rank to the officer who passed the impugned order. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the impugned order and found an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 74 of the DVAT Act. The Court clarified that objections against the impugned order would not be barred by Section 79(1)(j) of the DVAT Act. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal or objection within two weeks, to be disposed of on merits within eight weeks.

In conclusion, the Court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies and the need for the petitioner to exhaust such remedies, especially when covered by previous judgments. The Court maintained neutrality on the merits of the controversy, allowing parties to present their contentions before the appropriate forum. The order was directed to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the counsels via email.