2016 (11) TMI 1183 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - ex-parte assessment order - assessment order passed without granting time to petitioner - principles of natural justice - Held that - we are of the considered view that as statutory remedy of appeal and second appeal are available in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse available of filing an appeal, writ petition is disposed of. In case appeal is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, learned Tribunal shall proceed on merits in accordance with law and shall not reject the appeal on the ground of delay - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ex-parte assessment order for entry tax under M.P Commercial Tax Act and Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act; Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the ex-parte assessment order; Maintainability of the writ petition in light of available statutory remedies of appeal and second appeal.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed to challenge an ex-parte assessment order for entry tax under the M.P Commercial Tax Act and Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner claimed that the order was passed illegally without granting them time, rendering it unsustainable. The Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, pointing out that statutory remedies of appeal and second appeal to the Tribunal were available under Section 46 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. It was argued that interference through extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be allowed at this stage, especially considering the initiation of ex-parte proceedings when the petitioner failed to appear despite notice.

The petitioner contended that the tax liability exceeded ?1 crore, requiring a pre-deposit amount, and emphasized the violation of natural justice principles as grounds for invoking the court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. After hearing both parties, the court opined that since statutory remedies of appeal and second appeal were available in the case, there was no justification for interference through a writ petition. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 30 days. The Tribunal was directed to proceed with the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law, without rejecting it solely on the grounds of delay. The court concluded the judgment with the observation that the petition stood disposed of, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner to pursue.