2019 (9) TMI 392 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court emphasizes statutory remedy over writ jurisdiction under MP VAT Act

Dheeraj Shrivastava Versus State of M.P. and Others

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging an order under the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002, emphasizing the ... Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Section 46 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - petitioner has challenged the reassessment proceedings in respect of the year 2014-15 and the order is certainly appealable - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS VERSUS CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with a issue of alternative remedy and it was held that If an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the present case, the appeal is certainly not going to be an appeal from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife”. There is a statutory authority to decide the appeal and all the grounds raised in the present writ petition can very well be raised in the appeal before the appellate authority. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax - petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order under Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Availability of alternative remedy - Principles of natural justice and fair play - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 - Statutory remedies vs. writ jurisdiction.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to Order under MP Value Added Tax Act, 2002The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assessing Authority under the MP Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The petitioner raised various grounds and cited a judgment on alternative remedy. The Act provides for an appeal against such orders to the Appellate Authority. The order challenged was in relation to reassessment proceedings for the year 2014-15. The Competent Authority passed the order after granting a hearing to the petitioner, following principles of natural justice and fair play.Issue 2: Availability of Alternative RemedyThe judgment cited emphasized the principle that the High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 226 when an alternative remedy is available, except in exceptional cases. The Court discussed various precedents highlighting the discretionary nature of the High Court's jurisdiction in such matters. The judgment reiterated that statutory forums should be exhausted before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226The judgment discussed the wide powers conferred by Article 226 on High Courts but emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy limits the High Court's interference. The Court referred to several cases to establish that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such interference.Issue 4: Statutory Remedies vs. Writ JurisdictionThe Court in the judgment reiterated that when a statutory forum is provided for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained bypassing the statutory mechanism. The judgment highlighted that the existence of an effective alternative remedy is crucial, and the High Court should not interfere if the statutory remedy is adequate and not a mere formality.In the present case, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax. The petitioner was advised to pursue the available statutory remedy by filing an appeal in accordance with the law. The judgment disposed of the writ petitions without costs, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.