Deputy Commissioner's tax order upheld as petitioner must exhaust statutory appeal before challenging natural justice denial

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax's order, finding that while the petitioner's claim of denial of natural justice was arguable, alternate remedy of appeal must be exhausted first. The court corrected an earlier procedural error in disposal and granted liberty to file appeal within specified timeline. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider all contentions including natural justice violations and constitutional validity issues. The petition was disposed of with emphasis on pursuing statutory appeal route before approaching the court directly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Error in disposal of the petition based on orders from a different petition.
2. Challenge to Order-in-Original by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax.
3. Allegation of lack of compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Relegation of petitioner to an alternate remedy of appeal.
5. Filing of an appeal against the impugned order within a specified timeline.
6. Keeping all contentions open for the Appellate Authority to decide.
7. Clarification on the constitutional validity issue raised in the petition.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment addressed the issue of an error in the disposal of a petition based on orders from a different petition. The court acknowledged the mistake and recalled the previous order, restoring the petition for Admission/Disposal. The court issued a Rule and made it returnable immediately with the consent of the parties' counsel, ensuring procedural correctness.

Regarding the challenge to the Order-in-Original by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner alleged a lack of compliance with principles of natural justice. The court noted that while the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order, the petitioner argued for setting aside the order due to a lack of adequate hearing post the final reply submission. The court examined the proceedings' Roznama and found the issue of denial of opportunity of hearing to be arguable but not conclusive, reiterating the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the court directly.

The court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing the importance of pursuing the appeal route first. The petitioner was given liberty to file an appeal within a specified timeline, with the assurance that the Appellate Authority would consider all contentions, including the alleged failure of natural justice. The court kept all contentions open for the Appellate Authority to decide, including the constitutional validity issue raised in the petition's prayer clause, which was explicitly left open for future consideration.

In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the appeal route, ensuring that all issues and contentions could be addressed by the Appellate Authority. The judgment highlighted the significance of exhausting alternate remedies and clarified the procedural steps to be followed in addressing the petitioner's grievances effectively.

---