2022 (2) TMI 292 - HC - GST

Levy of tax/ GST - Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Transferable Development Rights pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney entered into by the petitioner with the land owners - non-application of mind - non-consideration of any of the objections filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - As the petitioner could not satisfy any of the circumstances, under which a party can move before High Court, when alternative remedy is available and there is an effective alternative remedy before the appellate authority, this Court feels that the matter does not require any interference. Further, in the present case, it needs a detailed examination of the elements in the taxing proposal and all the points raised by the petitioner herein can be considered by the appellate authority. This Court finds no glaring illegality in the assessment order, which requires indulgence of this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for tax on Transferable Development Rights under GST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief through a writ to set aside the assessment order, arguing it was illegal, arbitrary, against natural justice, and contrary to relevant laws and notifications. The petitioner contended that tax on Transferable Development Rights should be paid by the landowners, not the developer. The objections raised by the petitioner were allegedly not considered, and the Assessing Officer was claimed to lack jurisdiction. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner should first seek remedy through the appellate forum before approaching the High Court.

The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision outlining conditions for approaching the High Court when alternative remedies are available. As the petitioner did not meet the specified circumstances and an effective alternative remedy existed, the Court found no need for interference. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the taxing proposal and stated that the appellate authority could address the petitioner's concerns. No significant illegality was found in the assessment order warranting the High Court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy by approaching the appellate forum. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of. The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the role of the appellate authority in addressing specific concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the assessment order for tax on Transferable Development Rights.