9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND NAGARJUNA REDDY C.V. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by G.S. SINGHVI C.J. This petition is directed against order dated March 31, 2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Srinagar Colony Circle, Hyderabad (the respondent herein), whereby he created tax liability of Rs. 8,57,27,945 against the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the Act ) for the assessment year 2003-04. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products like M. S. ingots, tower and tower parts, etc. It is registered as a dealer under the Act. For the assessment year 2003-04, the petitioner filed return and disclosed net turnover of Rs. 29,15,82,857. The respondent did not accept the return and issued show-cause notice dated January 9, 2007 to the petitioner requiring it to file objections against the proposed rejection of its claim for exemption in relation to various items including second sales of iron and steel on the ground that the same were not supported by any documentary evidence to show that the goods suffered tax in terms of section 7A of the Act. The petitioner filed replycum-objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not entertain writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The rule of alternative remedy, which is one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts has been applied by the courts with great rigor in cases involving levy and recovery of taxes. It has been consistently held that the statutory remedies of appeal and revision available under an enactment, which empowers the competent authority to make assessment and/or levy and collect taxes should normally be treated as an effective alternative remedy and the High Court should be extremely slow to directly entertain writ petition in such matters. In A.V. Venkateshwaran, Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1506, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while reiterating that the rule of alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition, but is a rule evolved by the superior courts for exercise of their discretion, observed as under: The wide proposition that the existence of an alternative remedy is a bar to the entertainment of a petition under article 226 of the Constitution unless ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or Tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another Tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be by-passed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. In Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zilla Parishad (now Zilla Parishad) AIR 1969 SC 556 the Supreme Court reiterated the rule of alternative remedy in the following words: ...when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant he should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and not by a petition under article 226. In Champalal Binani v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1970] 76 ITR 692 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 645, Joharmal Murlidhar and Co. v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam [1971] 79 ITR 6 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 1980, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh [1971] 82 ITR 888 (SC); [1972] 4 SCC 379, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818, Gujarat University v. N.U. Rajguru AIR 1988 SC 66, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal [1999] 4 SCC 43, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2001] 6 SCC 634, State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics Chemicals Ltd. [2002] 1 SCC 216, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2003] 2 SCC 107, ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 553, the Supreme Court applied the rule of alternative remedy in different situations. In Harbanslal Sahnia [2003] 2 SCC 107, the Supreme Court considered the situations in which the High Court can exercise power under article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy and held: . . . the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence was made to sections 6 and 7 of the said Act and it was observed that the State Government had power to make demand of rent from the appellant-company. In view of the above position, it cannot be said that the learned single judge as well as the Division Bench had committed an error of law in dismissing the petitions and appeals by allowing the appellant to avail of an alternative remedy of filing appeals . . . The petitioner's case does not fall in any of the three exceptions enumerated in the judgments of the Supreme Court. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor the learned counsel argued that the respondent did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of exemption or that the Act is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution or the assessment made by the respondent is violative of any of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner is not an effective alternative remedy. The question whether the order under challenge can be treated as totally non-speaking order is highly debatable. Even if one may think that more det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
