2022 (10) TMI 188 - SCH - VAT and Sales Tax

E-auction - arbitrable dispute or not - appellant was virtually seeking the enforcement of a contract through a writ petition for raising a claim for refund - seeking acceptance of Form C and issue Form E-1 to the petitioner for the goods distained from one State to another - grant of benefit of concessional rate of tax to the petitioner after accepting Form C on record - HELD THAT - The High Court was in error. The appellant is not asserting a contractual claim in pursuance of the e-auction. Undoubtedly a contractual dispute would be amenable to be resolved by arbitration. However in the present case as the reliefs which have been extracted above indicate the dispute was not of that nature. Hence we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15 March 2018 and remand the proceedings back to the High Court for consideration on merits. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 15 March 2018 is set aside. Since the writ petition was filed in 2016 the High Court requested to endeavour an expeditious disposal preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall file their reply within four weeks. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of writ petition by High Court based on arbitrability of dispute and seeking enforcement of contract through writ petition for refund.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Writ Tax No 850 of 2016. The appellant, a private limited company engaged in coal trading, sought relief through a writ petition before the High Court. The appellant's grievance was that the respondent did not issue Form E-1 and did not grant the benefit of Form C while charging tax at a higher rate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition citing that the terms of the e-auction provided for arbitration of disputes and that the appellant was essentially seeking to enforce a contract through the writ petition for a refund.

The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, disagreed with the High Court's reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not asserting a contractual claim but seeking relief as indicated in the writ petition. The Court clarified that while a contractual dispute could be subject to arbitration, the nature of the dispute in this case was different. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the proceedings back to the High Court for consideration on merits. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was restored to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the parties' contentions in the writ petition. The Court instructed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the case, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. The respondents were directed to file their reply within four weeks. Finally, any pending applications were disposed of by the Supreme Court.