2026 (5) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (a) Order dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the 3rd respondent. (b) Order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure-8) passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition DN 13 & 14 of 2014. (c) Order dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-10) passed by the above-referred Tribunal, dismissing the review petition against the order dated 06.05.2015. 3. This petition concerns the assessment year 2009-10. 4. The Assessing Authority, by the order dated 10.09.2012, assessed the petitioner to tax. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority by filing Appeal Nos. BK VAT-10/2013-14 and BK CST-02/2013-14. These appeals were disposed of by an order dated 12th of November, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 82 of the said Act. 10. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 1337, has held that where a statute provides for an alternative remedy, even before the High Court itself, this Court should not ordinarily exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "9. While deciding whether to entertain a petition under Article 226 bearing in mind the precedents in the field, a writ court ought to additionally notice the forum designated by the statute for the litigant to approach. This is necessary because the alternativ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at, on the merits, the challenges deserve to fail. In any case, we believe that the sole objective of instituting multiple proceedings in this matter is to create undue hurdles in the determination of the precise dues for as long as possible and then to avoid the payment of the determined taxes. 13. Insofar as the dismissal of DN 14/2014 by the Tribunal is concerned, we see no error, much less any jurisdictional error. This revision was directed against the remand order, and consequently, there was nothing wrong in the Tribunal holding that such a revision was not maintainable. 14. In any event, even if we were to hold that the revision was maintainable, there would be no question of allowing such a revision, because the Appellate Aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected based upon this letter dated 21.04.2011, either at the stage of assessment, appeal or revision. Accordingly, based on such a letter, which was sought to be produced for the first time in the review petition, there was no question of exercising review jurisdiction. 19. Besides, the Tribunal also noted that, in the lease deed dated 11.01.2008, there was an express condition that the petitioner be bound to adhere to the conditions mentioned in the DFO's letter Nos. 1454 dated 7.4.2006. The Tribunal has also reasoned and noted that at no stage did the petitioner approach the Government for any clarification or exemption. The petitioner did not also approach any Court of law or the Tribunal seeking exemption or repudiation of such cond....