2020 (11) TMI 722 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy of appeal - Redetermination of tax liability of petitioner - HELD THAT - There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. This Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter- Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders in CST/773780/2007-08 and CST/773780/2008-09 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 without availing statutory appeal.

Analysis:

The High Court of Madras heard the case where the Writ Petitions challenged the orders passed by the Respondent re-determining the tax liability of the Petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Petitioner had the option to file a statutory appeal against the order within 30 days before the Appellate Authority, but instead chose to file the Writ Petitions directly challenging the order. The Court noted the absence of an acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not utilizing the alternative remedy provided by the statute. Citing a legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to bypass statutory procedures unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as when the vires of the statute are in question or public wrongs are intertwined with public justice. The Court highlighted that matters involving revenue with available statutory remedies are not suitable for bypassing the established procedures. The Court also expressed concern over the misuse of Article 226 petitions solely for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings. Therefore, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case due to the availability of statutory remedies.

As a result of the above analysis, the High Court of Madras dismissed the Writ Petitions as they could not be entertained, emphasizing the importance of utilizing statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The Court also closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs on the parties involved.