In Tax Matter when Statutory Remedy is available, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that in a tax Matter when Statutory Remedy of appeal is available, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Background
By an Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer denied the Input rebate under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 to the respondent.
Without preferring an appeal against the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002, the respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court.
Despite the specific objection raised on behalf of the State not to entertain the writ petition against the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate in view of the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002, the High Court entertained the writ petition by observing that there are no disputed questions of facts involved in the matter and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for. That thereafter by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate and consequently has allowed the Input rebate in favour of the respondent – assessee – original writ petitioner.
Decision
The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari opined that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory appeal would be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002.
The bench noted that while entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate, the High Court has observed that there are no disputed question of facts arise and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for.
It was observed that the aforesaid can hardly be a good/valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory remedy of appeal was available.
The bench quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
The court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the respondent – original writ petitioner – assessee on the ground of alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal available to the respondent.
The court directed that if such a remedy is preferred within a period of four weeks, the same be entertained and decided and disposed of on merits without raising an issue with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of the statutory requirements, if any, for preferring an appeal under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002.
The bench further directed the appellate authority to decide and dispose of the appeal and the issue without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court which as such is quashed and set aside by the judgment and order.
Case title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v/s M/s Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited
Citation: Civil appeal no. 7170 OF 2022
