Article 226 writ should be dismissed when statutory MVAT/CST appeals/revision available and serious factual disputes exist

HC erred in entertaining a writ under Art.226 challenging an assessment order and notice of demand where statutory remedies of appeal/revision were available under the MVAT/CST framework. Serious factual disputes (including whether the order was dated 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020) and no valid justification were shown for bypassing the appellate route. Judicial prudence requires relegation to the statutory forum when alternate remedies exist. The writ petitioner was directed to pursue the prescribed appeals; the writ challenging the assessment order and notice of demand is dismissed by the SC.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under the MVAT Act and CST Act.
2. Whether the assessment order was passed within the period of limitation.
3. Whether the assessee should have availed the statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of High Court entertaining the writ petition under Article 226:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order, bypassing the statutory remedies available under the MVAT Act and CST Act. The Court emphasized that statutory remedies should not be bypassed unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The Court cited several precedents, including *Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa* and *Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan*, to support the principle that where an alternative statutory remedy is available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions. The Court concluded that the High Court should have relegated the assessee to the statutory remedy of appeal.

2. Period of Limitation for Assessment Order:

The respondent contended that the assessment order was not passed on 20.03.2020 but was passed subsequently, i.e., beyond 31.03.2020, and thus was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The High Court had observed that the assessment order must have been passed beyond the limitation period. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of this contention, as it focused on the procedural aspect of whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition in the first place.

3. Necessity of Availing Statutory Remedy of Appeal:

The Supreme Court underscored that the assessee had a statutory alternative remedy available by way of appeal before the first appellate authority, which ought to have been pursued. The Court noted that there were serious disputed facts regarding the date of the assessment order, which should have been addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. The Court reiterated that bypassing the statutory remedy without valid reasons is not justified. The Court referred to its decision in *Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement*, emphasizing that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. It directed the respondent-assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within four weeks, with the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits without raising any question of limitation, subject to fulfilling other statutory conditions. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the appellate authority to consider the appeal independently. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---