Alternative Remedy and Eligibility Certificate: High Court held entitlement certificate cannot be denied by fresh manufacture inquiry after scheme certification

A writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because availability of appeal is only a self-imposed restraint on writ jurisdiction, not an absolute bar, especially where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction and arbitrary. After an eligibility certificate was issued under the incentive scheme, the sales tax authority could not independently refuse or withhold amendment of the corresponding entitlement certificate by re-examining whether the activity amounted to manufacture; that issue could be considered, if at all, at the assessment stage. The refusal to issue the addenda was quashed, and amendment of the entitlement certificate with rescheduling of the incentive period was directed in conformity with the amended eligibility certificate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) Whether, after issuance of an eligibility certificate under the incentive scheme, the sales tax authority could independently refuse to amend the entitlement certificate on the ground that the petitioner's process did not amount to manufacture.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal is a self-imposed restraint on writ jurisdiction and not an absolute bar. Where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction and arbitrary, the writ court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The refusal to grant the entitlement certificate at the threshold was challenged as jurisdictionally erroneous, and the issue had a direct bearing on the petitioner's legal entitlement under the incentive scheme.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected, and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, after issuance of an eligibility certificate under the incentive scheme, the sales tax authority could independently refuse to amend the entitlement certificate on the ground that the petitioner's process did not amount to manufacture.

Analysis: The eligibility certificate issued by the implementing agency under the 1993 incentive scheme was the foundation for the entitlement certificate. The prescribed conditions under Rule 83 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules stood satisfied, and the petitioner's assessments had consistently treated it as a manufacturer. The question whether the process amounted to manufacture could be considered at the assessment stage, but the sales tax authority could not sit in appeal over the eligibility certificate or deny the entitlement certificate by undertaking a fresh, independent examination of manufacture. The scheme, the agreement with the State, and the statutory framework under Section 89 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act supported issuance of the entitlement certificate in line with the amended eligibility certificate.

Conclusion: The sales tax authority was bound to issue the addenda to the entitlement certificate in conformity with the amended eligibility certificate, and the refusal to do so was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal was quashed, and the petitioner was held entitled to amendment of the entitlement certificate and rescheduling of the incentive period in accordance with the amended eligibility certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an eligibility certificate is issued by the implementing agency under an incentive scheme and the prescribed statutory conditions are satisfied, the sales tax authority cannot independently deny or withhold the corresponding entitlement certificate on the ground that the activity is not manufacture; that question may be examined, if at all, at the assessment stage.

---