2013 (2) TMI 26 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 Whether WRIT petition is maintainable where the petitioners having efficacious alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the assessment order - This petition was filed within the period of limitation on 16.5.2012 and during the pendency of this petition, the period of filing statutory appeal has expired Held that - We are not inclined to entertain this petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the impugned assessment order. The petitioner may also seek indulgence of the appellate authority for waiver of statutory amount, as is required under section 46(5) of the VAT Act. Allow further 15 days time from today to the petitioner to file an appeal and if during the aforesaid period, the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of block assessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax.
2. Availability of alternative remedy under section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002.
3. Petitioner's request for entertaining the writ petition based on precedents.
4. Opposition to entertaining the writ petition against the assessment order.
5. Petitioner's plea for extension of time to file an appeal and stay on recovery action.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a challenge against an order of block assessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, directing recovery of tax. The petitioner contended that the order was ex-parte and lacked jurisdiction based on a previous judgment of the Court. The Court acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy under section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, emphasizing that the petitioner could file a statutory appeal against the order.

2. The petitioner sought to entertain the writ petition citing a judgment of the Delhi High Court and the Apex Court. However, the respondents relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment stating that writ petitions should not be entertained against assessment orders. The Court, considering the petitioner's alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal, declined to entertain the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal, including seeking waiver of the required statutory amount.

3. During the proceedings, the petitioner raised concerns about the statutory period for filing an appeal expiring due to the pending petition. The petitioner requested an extension of time to file the appeal and a stay on the recovery action initiated by the respondents. The Court allowed an additional 15 days for filing the appeal, directing the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without considering the question of limitation. Regarding the recovery of dues, the Court noted the statement made by the learned Dy.A.G. and Additional Commissioner, directing no further action for the time being.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of availing alternative remedies provided under the law, such as filing a statutory appeal, and highlights the limitations of entertaining writ petitions against assessment orders. The Court's decision to grant an extension for filing the appeal and stay on recovery action demonstrates a balanced approach to addressing the petitioner's concerns while upholding legal procedures and principles.