TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 3. However, we do not propose to dismiss this writ petition only on the above ground. There are two other weighty reasons to do so. 4. First, an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer could be challenged by an aggrieved assessee in an appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act. The time period for filing an appeal, we are informed, is 60 days. Without carrying the orders aforesaid dated May 16, 2019 and October 30, 2019 in an appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act within the stipulated time, the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. There is no reason or explanation as to why the writ petition was not instituted, at least within the stipulated period for preferring an appeal. Although the law of limitation is not applicable to writ proceedings, delay and laches are factors that the Court ought to bear in mind while entertaining a writ petition. Certainly, a litigant cannot knock the doors of the High Court at leisure after lapse of the time period for preferring an appeal. In such a case, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary power. We may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a Writ Court, is well established. It is not the law that a writ petition would not be maintainable because of the party has not exhausted the alternative remedy. The question is one of entertainability of the writ petition, in exercise of sound judicial discretion, despite the aggrieved party having a remedy elsewhere. The exceptions, on the fulfillment whereof the writ jurisdiction could be invoked, have been carved out by several decisions of the Supreme Court. We may only refer to the decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 [Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks] in this regard. 8. In the present case, none of the exceptions is satisfied. In Aircel Ltd. (supra), the Court held that there were pure questions of law arising for decision, which could be examined while hearing the writ petition "under peculiar circumstances". The said decision is, therefore, one which turns on its facts and is, thus, not applicable here. 9. It would not be inapt, at this juncture, to notice certain other decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to the approach to be adopted by the High Courts in exercising jurisdiction un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....islature has set up an elaborate and self-contained machinery for investigating whether a transaction is liable to be taxed because it is of the nature of a retail sale within the meaning of the Act. The Taxing Officer is invested with authority to determine the nature of the transaction and its liability to tax, and against his decision there is an appeal to the Appellate Authority and a further right of revision to the Commissioner. It is true that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is extensive, but normally the High Court does not exercise that jurisdiction by entertaining petitions against the order of taxing authorities, when the statute under which tax is sought to be levied provides a remedy by way of an appeal or other proceeding to a party aggrieved and thereby by-pass the statutory machinery. That is not to say that the High Court will never entertain a petition against the order of the Taxing Officer. The High Court has undoubtedly jurisdiction to decide whether a statute under which a tax is sought to be levied is within the legislative competence of the legislature enacting it or whether the statute defies constitutional restrictions or infringes any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edy provided by that statute only must be availed of. *****" 13. Not too long ago, the Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 [CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal], upon considering a host of decisions had the occasion to opine that: "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case (AIR 1964 SC 1419), Titaghur Paper Mills case [(1983) 2 SCC 433] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for....