2017 (11) TMI 1163 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that - contentions, on a plain reading of it, itself would show that, contentions are on merits and not on jurisdictional issue alone - In a case where the contentions urged have been dealt with and answered, it is neither permissible for the litigant to thereafter seek liberty of this Court to be relegated to pursue statutory remedies and thereby to get the whole judgment itself nullified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P3 order under Section 67 of the KVAT Act - Jurisdictional issues raised in the writ petition - Dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge - Appeal against the judgment - Contentions on merits and jurisdictional issues - Relegation to pursue statutory remedies - Levy of penalty based on income tax returns - Initiation of penalty proceedings in case of compounding - Existence of a binding contract in case of compounding - Officer resorting to estimation under Section 67 of the KVAT Act - Dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge - Appeal against the judgment - Agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge.

Analysis:

The appeal before the High Court arose from a judgment in a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 67 of the KVAT Act. The appellant, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, contested the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge. The appellant argued that the challenge raised in the writ petition was on jurisdictional issues. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that even if the learned single Judge did not find it fit for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant should have been allowed to pursue statutory remedies to address disputes on merits.

Upon hearing the arguments, the High Court noted that the contentions raised by the appellant were not solely jurisdictional but also on merits. The judgment under appeal highlighted the contentions put forth by the appellant, including objections to the levy of penalty based on income tax returns, initiation of penalty proceedings in cases of compounding, and the existence of a binding contract in case of compounding. The learned single Judge addressed these contentions and subsequently dismissed the writ petition.

The High Court emphasized that once the contentions have been addressed and answered in a judgment, it is not permissible for a litigant to seek to be relegated to pursue statutory remedies to nullify the judgment. After considering the findings of the learned single Judge, the High Court concurred with the conclusions and found no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it failed to establish grounds for intervention, and the findings of the learned single Judge were upheld by the High Court.