2022 (5) TMI 640 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Validity of assessment order and rectification order passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer under Section 5 (3) of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - On perusal of relevant provisions under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, it is found that as per Section 36 of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act. 1944, West Bengal Taxation Tribunal is the competent forum for adjudicating the nature of issues arise out of the impugned orders of the first Appellate authority and the nature of reliefs petitioner has sought in these Writ Petitions. Under The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the Tribunal has got exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the appeal relating to levy of tax in any assessment under the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 and the impugned order of the first Appellate authority passed under Section 32 or 35 of the said Agricultural Income Tax Act. Further on perusal of relevant provisions of The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, it is found that petitioner has got speedy and efficacious remedy and even can get interim relief also. The impugned orders passed by the first Appellate authority are neither without jurisdiction nor it is in violation of principle of natural justice nor there is any procedural illegality during the impugned proceeding before the first Appellate authority which petitioner intends to challenge in the instant Writ Petitions on the ground of alleged wrongful interpretation of relevant provisions of law and mode of computation of tax adopted by the assessing officer which according to me cannot be a ground for invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court by avoiding the statutory alternative remedy by further Appeal before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal if petitioner is so aggrieved unless petitioner is able to make out a case that the nature of dispute it wants adjudication by this Writ Court is specifically barred under the statute for the adjudication by the Tribunal or the nature of relief petitioners have asked in this writ proceeding could not be granted by the Tribunal which is the second Appellate authority. These Writ Petitions against the impugned orders cannot be entertained - petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Availability and adequacy of alternative statutory remedies.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, and the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.
4. Procedural propriety and natural justice in the impugned orders.
5. Applicability of precedents cited by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, challenging the orders of the first Appellate authority. The petitioner argued that the assessment order involved erroneous interpretation of law, which is a pure question of law. The Court, however, emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Single Bench of the High Court is ousted by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, and that the Tribunal acts as the "court of first instance" for such matters. This principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandrakumar vs Union of India, which mandates that Tribunals are competent to hear such disputes and their decisions are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court.

2. Availability and adequacy of alternative statutory remedies:
The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, which is competent to adjudicate the issues raised. The Tribunal provides a speedy and efficacious remedy, including the power to grant interim relief. The Court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, but the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory remedy.

3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, and the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987:
The petitioner contended that the assessing officer misinterpreted the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, and a relevant circular. The Court, however, held that such issues of law and interpretation fall within the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. The relevant provisions of the Tribunal Act and the Agricultural Income Tax Act were cited to establish the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.

4. Procedural propriety and natural justice in the impugned orders:
The Court found no evidence that the first Appellate authority acted without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, or committed any procedural irregularity. The petitioner's challenge was primarily based on alleged misinterpretation of law and computation methods, which do not constitute grounds for invoking the writ jurisdiction in the absence of procedural impropriety.

5. Applicability of precedents cited by the petitioner:
The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments to argue that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies. The Court distinguished these cases, noting that none of them involved the specific context of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, and the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. The Court highlighted that the decision in L. Chandrakumar was not considered in the precedents cited by the petitioner, making them inapplicable to the present case.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. The Tribunal is the appropriate forum to address the issues raised, including any questions of law and the method of computation of tax. The dismissal of the writ petitions does not preclude the petitioner from challenging the impugned orders before the Tribunal in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →