2005 (5) TMI 628 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies under Article 226

Uma Bricks Industries Versus State of Tripura and others

Uma Bricks Industries Versus State of Tripura and others - [2007] 5 VST 567 (Gau) Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court can invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an assessment order when statutory alternative remedies are available.2. Validity and applicability of the provisions under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.3. Precedents on the High Court's discretion to entertain writ petitions in the presence of alternative remedies.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Article 226:The primary issue is whether the High Court can invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an assessment order when the dealer has alternative statutory remedies available. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, challenged the assessment order and subsequent demand notice, alleging improper appreciation of facts and lack of intimation. The court emphasized that Section 20 of 'the Act' provides an appeal mechanism where the appellate authority can confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment order. Additionally, the Commissioner can entertain revisions under Section 21, and appeals can be made to the Tribunal under Section 22. The court cited multiple precedents, including Joharmal Murlidhar and Co. v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam [1971] 79 ITR 6 (SC), where the Supreme Court upheld the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.2. Validity and Applicability of Provisions:The court referred to the provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, including Sections 6 to 23, which outline the procedures for registration, submission of returns, assessment, penalties, appeals, and revisions. The respondents argued that the provisions under Sections 20 and 21 are still valid and have statutory force, as upheld in Fatikcherra Tea Estate v. State of Tripura [1997] 104 STC 453 (Gauhati). The court agreed, stating that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions against assessment orders when specific provisions for appeal are available under 'the Act.' The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC), which held that the assessing authority is the best judge of the situation in best judgment assessments.3. Precedents on High Court's Discretion:The judgment extensively cited precedents where the Supreme Court and other High Courts have held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when statutory remedies are available. Notable cases include:- G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. AIR 1952 SC 192, where the Supreme Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act being a self-contained code, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked.- Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC), where the court emphasized exhausting statutory remedies.- Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that the remedy provided by the statute must be followed.- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2003] 2 SCC 107, where the Supreme Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion.The court concluded that the petitioner must avail the remedies available under 'the Act' and that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority to reappraise facts, quantum, and disputed questions of facts. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and any interim orders were vacated.In summary, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment reiterated the validity and applicability of the provisions under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and upheld the established legal principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when alternative remedies are available.