2020 (5) TMI 149 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Appeal Allowed: SC Overturns HC Judgment for Exceeding Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Emphasizes Adherence to Statutory Limits.

The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the HC's judgment that had entertained a writ petition challenging an assessment order after the statutory appeal ... Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - alternative efficacious statutory remedy - statutory limitation and maximum condonation period - inability of High Court to bypass legislative scheme by writ when statute prescribes exclusive remedy - scope of Article 142 vis-a -vis statutory prohibition on condonation beyond prescribed period - effect of rejection of condonation application on finality of assessment orderJurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - alternative efficacious statutory remedy - statutory limitation and maximum condonation period - Whether the High Court should have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 had become time barred beyond the maximum condonable period of 60 days. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that although the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, it is subject to self imposed restraint and ordinarily will not be exercised to bypass an alternative efficacious remedy provided by statute. Section 31 prescribes a 30 day period for preferring an appeal and permits condonation for a further period not exceeding 30 days; the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond that aggregate 60 day period. The legislative prescription of a maximum condonation period embodies underlying public policy and forms part of the statutory scheme such that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be routinely used to render that scheme otiose. The Court examined the facts and found that the respondent did not satisfactorily substantiate the date it became aware of the assessment order, had deposited the stipulated percentage without preferring a timely appeal, and pursued alternative remedies (including an application under Rule 60) before filing the appeal many months later. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition after expiry of the statutory maximum condonable period merely because the respondent offered to explain discrepancies and had deposited an additional percentage of the disputed tax. Reliance on Article 142 or on precedents permitting exceptional relief was considered inapposite where the statutory limitation is explicit and founded on policy considerations; consequently the High Court should not have set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter. [Paras 11, 15, 21, 22]The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed after the statutory maximum condonable period; the writ petition should have been rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court setting aside the assessment order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court ought to entertain a challenge to an assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the statutory remedy of appeal is foreclosed by the law of limitation.2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.3. Whether the explanation provided by the respondent for the delay in filing the appeal was sufficient and justified.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. High Court’s Jurisdiction Under Article 226:The central question was whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal is foreclosed by the law of limitation. The Supreme Court emphasized that although the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226, it should exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain writ petitions if an alternative effective remedy is available. The Court cited several precedents, including Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Orissa & Ors., to underline that the High Court should not bypass the statutory remedy provided by law.2. Exceeding Jurisdiction by the High Court:The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment order dated 21.06.2017. The High Court entertained the writ petition despite the statutory period for filing an appeal having expired and the appellate authority having no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 60 days. The Supreme Court referred to its own decision in Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., which held that even the Supreme Court cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period under Article 142 of the Constitution, implying that the High Court's action under Article 226 was unjustified.3. Explanation for Delay in Filing Appeal:The respondent argued that the delay was due to the negligence of an employee who was later suspended. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate authority had rejected this explanation as unsubstantiated. The High Court, however, did not examine this finding and instead focused on the respondent's ability to explain discrepancies in turnover and the payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The Supreme Court found that the respondent failed to provide a valid reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time and noted that no affidavits from the concerned employees were submitted to support the delay.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent, as the statutory period for filing an appeal had long expired, and the respondent did not substantiate the reasons for the delay. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, dismissing the writ petition. The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory provisions regarding limitation must be adhered to and cannot be bypassed by invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.