High Court emphasizes alternate remedy, dismisses Writ Petitions, grants liberty to pursue Second Appeal

The High Court declined to entertain the Writ Petitions, emphasizing the rule of alternate remedy and the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner had already pursued remedies before the 1st Appellate Authority with a further remedy available via Second Appeal, and no breach of fundamental rights or excess of jurisdiction was demonstrated, the Court disposed of the petitions. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the alternate remedy while preserving the right to raise all contentions on merits in the future.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petitions despite availability of alternate remedy.
2. Compliance with circulars and instructions in assessment orders.
3. Rejection of declared values and re-determination of value under relevant rules.
4. Adequacy of opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner.
5. Applicability of the rule of alternate remedy in the present case.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petitions despite availability of alternate remedy:
The petitioner challenged the order in Appeal and the order in Assessment passed by the Authorities. The Respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to file an Appeal. The petitioner contended that the High Court can invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if an alternate remedy is available, especially when the authority against whom the Writ is filed lacks jurisdiction or has usurped jurisdiction without legal foundation. The petitioner relied on various judgments to support this argument.

Issue 2: Compliance with circulars and instructions in assessment orders:
The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in contravention of Circular and IR No.62/2018 issued by SVB, making them without jurisdiction. The petitioner emphasized that the authorities failed to adhere to the procedure and circulars, despite the SVB accepting the petitioner's pricing methodology. The petitioner claimed that the orders were based on assumptions and presumptions, leading to manifest injustice.

Issue 3: Rejection of declared values and re-determination of value under relevant rules:
The impugned orders rejected declared values under Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and re-determined values under Rule 4 of CVR, 2007. Further, additions were made under Rule 9(1)(C) and Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR, 2007 without proper adjudication proceedings or issuance of a Show Cause Notice. The rejection of declared values directly contradicted the circular and IR issued by SVB, indicating a lack of adherence to prescribed procedures.

Issue 4: Adequacy of opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the petition should not be relegated to the remedy of appeal due to the unnecessary hardship it would face, having to file numerous appeals and potentially facing erroneous assessments. The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances warranted the High Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 5: Applicability of the rule of alternate remedy in the present case:
The Respondents argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available and should avail it. They maintained that the respondent authorities had the necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders, and disputed questions of facts were involved. The Respondents relied on various judgments to support their contention that the petitioner should avail the alternate remedy instead of seeking writ jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner had already availed the remedy before the 1st Appellate Authority, and further remedy of Second Appeal was available. The Court emphasized that the rule of alternate remedy is a rule of self-restraint and that Writ jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Since the petitioner had not shown a breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the statute, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petitions. The Court disposed of both Writ Petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to avail alternate remedy, while keeping all contentions on merits open.

---