2026 (1) TMI 572 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

High-sea sales treatment in tax reassessment upheld; revisional authority reconsidered assessments, court declines writ jurisdiction allowing statutory appeal

Dominant issue: whether the revisional authority failed to consider the high-sea sales issue and violated the earlier HC direction. Court held the ... Challenge to order of the Revisional Authority on the ground that the petitioner’s rectification application and repeated representation are all pending consideration - contention of the petitioner is that as regards the issue of high sea sales, the Revisional Authority has not dealt with the same and have thus violated the earlier order of this Court in the earlier writ petition - HELD THAT:- The impugned order specifically reflects of the authority having taken up that issue but after refusing to interfere with the same on the ground that the said aspect already stood concluded earlier and, therefore, was beyond the purview of the revisional authority. Moreover, what is also apparently evident from the bare perusal of the proceedings is that pursuant to the earlier order this High court in M/S. PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2025 (6) TMI 2091 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], the respondent authorities did take up the matter of the petitioner and have duly scrutinized the same and the petitioners have in fact been provided with substantial relief of reducing the tax liability that was earlier assessed of Rs. 5,39,38,137/- and have reduced it to Rs. 2,98,94,898/-. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have decided the matter with a closed mind or with a pre-determined approach. In view of the same, the matter is not one which needs to be taken up invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather since there is already a statutory remedy of appeal available, it would be open for the petitioner to, if he so wants, assail the impugned order by way of statutory appeal. The High Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this juncture, reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if he so wants - petition dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 challenging the revisional order is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal exists.Analysis: The matter concerns assessment/revision in a fiscal statute where the revisional authority has reconsidered certain points and issued a fresh order. The petition raises mixed factual and legal questions including treatment of high-sea sales. The impugned order shows the authority considered the high-sea sales issue and declined interference on the ground that it was previously concluded. Established principles require that where a statutory appellate remedy is available and effective, constitutional writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked to bypass that remedy, particularly in revenue matters involving disputed facts. The availability of appeal with statutory conditions (including pre-deposit) and the presence of contested factual issues indicate the appropriateness of pursuing the statutory appeal rather than writ relief.Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner is left free to pursue the statutory appeal with applicable pre-deposit requirements.