The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Commercial Engineers And Body Building Company Limited - (Supreme Court) (14 Oct 2022)

In a tax matter, when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition

MANU/SC/1342/2022

Sales Tax/VAT

In facts of present case, by an Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer denied the Input rebate under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (‘MP VAT Act, 2002’) to the Respondent. Without preferring an appeal against the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002, the Respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court. The High Court entertained the writ petition by observing that, there are no disputed questions of facts involved in the matter and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for. Thereafter by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate and consequently has allowed the Input rebate in favour of the Respondent – assessee – original writ Petitioner.

The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory appeal would be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002.

While entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate, the High Court has observed that there are no disputed question of facts arise and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for. The aforesaid can hardly be a good/valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory remedy of appeal was available.

At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Greatship (India) Limited is required to be referred to. After taking into consideration the earlier decision of this Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, it is observed and held that in a tax matter when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Assessment Order by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Assessment Order denying the benefit of Input rebate is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the original writ petitioner is to be relegated to prefer an appeal against the Assessment Order passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, which may be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : STATUTORY APPEAL REMEDY AVAILMENT