2018 (3) TMI 1978 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses writ petition seeking mandamus for tax forms, emphasizing contractual nature of claims.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus for acceptance of Form C and issuance of Form E-1, and grant of concessional tax rate. The court ... Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - Enforcement of contractual rights by writ - Arbitration clause and forum of dispute resolution - Mandamus to compel acceptance of statutory forms and concessional tax - Availability of alternative legal remediesArbitration clause and forum of dispute resolution - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - Validity and effect of the arbitration clause in the E auction terms as a bar to entertaining the petition under Article 226 - HELD THAT: - The terms and conditions of the E auction, placed on record by the respondent, expressly provide that disputes arising out of the E auction are to be the subject matter of arbitration. The court treated this contractual stipulation as determinative of the proper forum for resolution of the dispute raised by the petitioner. In consequence, the petition seeking judicial relief under Article 226 was held inappropriate insofar as it sought adjudication of matters that the parties themselves had committed to arbitration.The arbitration clause in the E auction terms bars adjudication of the dispute in the writ petition; the matter falls to be resolved by arbitration or other competent fora.Enforcement of contractual rights by writ - Mandamus to compel acceptance of statutory forms and concessional tax - Availability of alternative legal remedies - Maintainability of a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel acceptance of Form C/issuance of Form E 1 and grant of concessional tax, framed as enforcement of contractual rights and claim for refund - HELD THAT: - The petitioner effectively sought enforcement of contractual obligations and a monetary refund by way of writ, including directions to accept statutory forms and to grant concessional tax. The court held that a writ under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy to enforce contractual rights or to seek recovery/refund where alternative remedies and dispute resolution mechanisms are available. The petitioner was directed to pursue the other legal remedies available to it rather than seek relief by way of writ petition.A writ petition is not maintainable to enforce the contract or to claim refund/compel acceptance of forms and concessional tax; the petitioner should pursue available alternative remedies.Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed: disputes arising from the E auction are to be resolved by arbitration or by other competent remedies; the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of contractual rights, refund or compulsion to accept statutory forms and grant concessional tax by way of writ under Article 226. Issues involved: Petition seeking writ of mandamus for acceptance of Form C and issuance of Form E-1, grant of concessional tax rate, and other suitable directions.Analysis:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to accept Form C and issue Form E-1 for goods transported between states, as well as to grant the benefit of a concessional tax rate. The petitioner had purchased coal from the respondent through an E-auction, with the terms and conditions of the auction specifying arbitration for dispute resolution. The court noted that the petitioner was essentially seeking contract enforcement and a refund, which could be pursued through other legal avenues, not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that it was not the appropriate remedy in this case.