2025 (4) TMI 630 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Maintainability of writ petitions - whether this Court should entertain these petitions despite there being alternative remedy or direct the petitioners to approach the competent authority as per Section 49 (4) of the Act of 2005? - substratum of arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners is based on the premise that once a writ petition was entertained the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail alternative remedy - HELD THAT - The petitioners cannot take a plea that the respondent authority has not provided any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. While deciding these petitions earlier this court has found that the alleged amended notice does not contain the new dispatch number therefore it cannot be said that the alleged notice was issued under sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the Act of 2005 and in consequence the order impugned passed in pursuance thereof has been declared to be as null and void but the Hon ble Division Bench in Genpact India Private Limited 2019 (11) TMI 1118 - SUPREME COURT and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti 2008 (5) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURT has held that the petitioners were fully aware of the intention of the respondent-department for initiation of such a proceeding under sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the Act of 2005 and direction was issued to decide these petitions in accordance with law. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Ors. Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited 2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that respondents therein had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The question is not about the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but about the maintainability of writ petition against the order passed under section 49 (3) of the VAT Act 2005 bypassing the statutory alternative remedy - There is a difference between the entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition. Even if the alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner that cannot be a ground to hold the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an administrative authority as not maintainable . The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised even if there exists an alternate remedy; however it is in restricted circumstances within well-defined parameters. As a matter of settled judicial practice the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available and in such circumstances the writ court may decline to entertain the writ petition. There is therefore a difference between maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition. Conclusion - The writ petitions dismissed directing the petitioners to pursue their grievances through the statutory appellate process provided under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax 2005. Petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment revolve around the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the deletion of entries in their registration certificates regarding the purchase of High-Speed Diesel (HSD) at concessional rates and the imposition of penalties. The core legal questions include:

• Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 49 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005.
• Whether the respondent authorities provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders.
• Whether the deletion of entries in the registration certificates and the imposition of penalties were justified under the relevant statutory provisions.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of Writ Petitions

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005, particularly Section 49, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Precedents cited include judgments from the Supreme Court regarding the principle of alternative remedies, such as "Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax" and "United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon & Ors."
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy typically precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in exceptional circumstances. The Court referred to established precedents that stress the need for parties to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court noted that the petitioners had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy. The Court found no violation of principles of natural justice that would warrant direct intervention.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy, and the petitioners should pursue the statutory appellate process.

Opportunity of Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 49 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005, outlines the procedural requirements for amendments to registration certificates. The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the procedural history and found that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and had opportunities to respond. The Division Bench had previously observed that the petitioners did not raise objections regarding the notices at the appropriate time.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the petitioners were provided with adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, as evidenced by their participation in the proceedings and responses to notices.
• Conclusions: The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated, and the procedural requirements under Section 49 were substantially met.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy generally precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction, except in exceptional cases where statutory remedies are inadequate or unavailable.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to pursue their grievances through the statutory appellate process provided under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file appeals within 30 days, ensuring that the appellate authority adjudicates the appeals without objections to limitations.

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention through writ petitions.