High Court sets aside assessment order, invoking writ jurisdiction to address injustice.

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an assessment order issued to a registered dealer in vegetable oil and oil cake. The court found that despite the availability of appeal remedies, writ jurisdiction could be invoked to address gross injustice or palpably illegal orders. The petitioner's objections were not considered in the assessment order, leading the court to set it aside and direct the respondent to reconsider the objections and issue a new order. The court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, granting relief to the petitioner without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order through writ jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The case involves a writ petition seeking to quash an assessment order dated October 28, 2005, issued by the respondent to a registered dealer in vegetable oil and oil cake. The petitioner contested the order, claiming it to be illegal, as it was passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that despite the availability of an appeal, writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge the assessment order, citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty [2001] 122 STC 594, which allows writ courts to intervene in cases of gross injustice or palpably illegal orders. The petitioner maintained that it only admitted a negligible stock difference during inspection and paid the corresponding tax, while disputing the liability for other discrepancies found in the seized documents. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, contended that the petitioner should pursue the appeal remedy instead of challenging the assessment order in a writ petition.

The court analyzed the statements given by the petitioner during inspection, noting that the petitioner had admitted liability only for the stock variation and had paid the tax promptly. However, the petitioner had raised objections to other seized records, which were not considered by the respondent in the assessment order. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision, the court held that in appropriate cases, despite the availability of appeal remedies in sales tax matters, writ courts could intervene to ensure substantive justice. Consequently, the court found this to be an appropriate case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment order, and directed the respondent to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass a new order in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

---