2020 (7) TMI 746 - HC - GST

High Court denies review of Assessment Order in writ petition, directs petitioner to pursue statutory remedy

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill Versus The Assistant Commissioner (S.T) -II, The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Union of India

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh declined to review an Assessment Order challenged in a writ petition, emphasizing the availability of a statutory remedy ... Maintainability of petition - statutory remedy to file an appeal before the appellate authority available - Validity of assessment order - petitioner submits that the petitioner instead of filing an appeal, has approached this Court and as such, some delay has occurred - HELD THAT:- Once a statute provides for effective remedy, the High Court must refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to examine correctness of the assessment order by this Court. The Writ Petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal. If such appeal is filed in accordance with law within ten (10) days, the appellate authority may examine the same and pass appropriate order. As an interim measure, to enable the petitioner to file an appeal, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive step against the petitioner for a period of two weeks - Petition closed. Issues:Assessment Order Challenge - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226Analysis:The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Sri Rakesh Kumar and Sri K.Suresh Reddy, JJ., heard a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Eluru Circle, Eluru. The petitioner sought relief from the Court, arguing that similar writ petitions with interim orders pending exist. However, the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes pointed out that the petitioner had a statutory remedy to appeal the assessment order before the appellate authority, as mentioned on page 16 of the impugned order. The Court emphasized that when a statute provides an effective remedy, the High Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby declining to review the assessment order's correctness.The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner directly approached the High Court, resulting in a delay. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to appeal to the appellate authority within ten days. The Court restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for two weeks to facilitate the appeal process. No costs were awarded in the judgment. Additionally, any pending Miscellaneous Petitions related to the Writ Petition were ordered to be closed, bringing the matter to a conclusion.