TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein challenging the Garnishee Order was challenged. By an order dated 10.09.2022, this Court dismissed the writ petition. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018 in the manner known to law. 3. It is under these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018 bearing reference VAT.No.34730012817/2017-18 for the period 2017-2018 (April 2017 to June 2017) under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Assessment Order precedes a Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2018 by the second respondent which was in turn was based on an inspection on 10.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s dated 14.09.2018, the present writ petition was filed only on 17.12.2019 long after the expiry of limitation for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. 11. That apart, it is submitted that no reply was given to the notice dated 28.08.2018 and therefore Impugned Order was passed. Hence prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry). 13. The petitioner had authorized his accountant to produce all documents that were required before the authorities during inspection. The information gathered during inspection on 10.02.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs. Antarim Zila Parishad [Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556] and also Nivedita Sharma v. COAI, (2011) 14 SCC 337 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 947]). In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419], the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 2005 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a c....