1999 (3) TMI 594 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeals Dismissed: Statutory Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Article 226 Petitions

Calicut Trading Company Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Calicut Trading Company Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - [1999] 115 STC 565 (Kar) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the transfer of assessment order.2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.3. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution after availing statutory remedies.4. Violation of principles of natural justice.5. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in transferring the case.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Transfer of Assessment Order:The appellant, an Export House in Mangalore, questioned the legality of the transfer order of the assessment for the year 1989-90 from the regular assessing authority to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Mysore. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes withdrew the transfer order during the hearing of the initial petitions, and a fresh order was later issued directing the Intelligence Wing Officer, Mangalore, to frame the assessment. The court found no fault in the Commissioner's jurisdiction to transfer the case and stated that even if the transfer was erroneous, it was within the exercise of jurisdiction and did not place the resulting order beyond jurisdiction.2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appellant filed the appeal against the assessment order on August 25, 1995, well beyond the 30-day limit, and sought condonation of delay with a medical certificate. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, and subsequent appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and revision petitions to the High Court were also dismissed. The court referenced the Supreme Court ruling in A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, emphasizing that a petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 if they are barred from statutory remedies due to their own fault in not adhering to prescribed timelines.3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution:The court examined whether the appellant could challenge the assessment order under Article 226 after failing to get relief through statutory appeals and revisions. It reiterated the principle that alternative efficacious remedies should be pursued before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The court held that the appellant, having unsuccessfully exhausted all statutory remedies, could not challenge the original assessment order under Article 226, as it would undermine the statutory process and lead to anomalous situations.4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant argued that the assessing authority violated principles of natural justice by using seized records without providing an opportunity to contest them. The court found that adequate opportunities were given to the appellant to file objections and returns, and there was no request made for copies of seized documents. The court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice, and these issues could have been addressed by the appellate or revisional authorities.5. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Transferring the Case:The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case to another assessing authority. The court affirmed that the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to transfer cases and that any error in exercising this jurisdiction did not render the resulting order void. Such errors should be corrected through appeals or revisions, not through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, with the court affirming that the writ petitions under Article 226 were not maintainable after the appellant had exhausted statutory remedies. The court also upheld the findings on the merits, stating that there was no violation of natural justice and that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes acted within his jurisdiction in transferring the case. The court emphasized the principle that statutory remedies should be pursued before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.