Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited vs. Commercial Taxes Officer And Anr

Held

The Court acknowledged the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the Act of 2003. While the Court agreed that the remedy of appeal exists, it clarified that this does not completely bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the petitioner's arguments based on Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, asserting that the sale and service components in surgical procedures involving stents cannot be separated. However, the respondents disputed this by referring to pharmacy bills where stents were purchased in the patient's name with a credit note. The Court found that this issue required a factual determination and discussion. Consequently, the Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal. To mitigate the delay and uncertainty, the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal within one month of its receipt, with cooperation from the respondents. The petitioner was granted fifteen days to file the appeal, which would be considered within the limitation period. If the petitioner succeeded in the appeal, any pre-deposit amount would be refunded forthwith.

Facts

The petitioner, Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, filed multiple writ petitions challenging an assessment order dated August 4, 2017, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The respondents, the Commercial Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, citing the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the writ petitions were maintainable as there was no factual dispute, and the issue was purely a question of law concerning Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, supported by various Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The respondents contended that factual aspects needed consideration, especially regarding the petitioner's management of stent purchases and procedures, and referred to specific state legislation and other High Court judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before this Court, despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, considering the petitioner's contention that the issue is purely one of law and no factual dispute exists? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petitions are maintainable because there is no factual dispute and the matter hinges on a question of law concerning the interpretation of Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India. They relied on judgments in "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.", "Tata Main Hospital Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.", "Fortis Health Care Limited and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.", and "M/s. International Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State off UP & 2 Ors." to support the argument that a writ petition is not barred by the availability of an appeal. The petitioner also expressed concern about the delay in appeal proceedings and the uncertainty regarding VAT/GST on stents. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable as a statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Act of 2003. They argued that factual aspects do require consideration, particularly concerning how the petitioner manages its affairs for purchasing stents and conducting procedures, and that the argument under Article 366(29A) must be applied to the facts of the case. They referred to Section 235 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003, and judgments from the Kerala High Court in "Malankara Orthodix Syrian Church Vs., Sales Tax Officer & Anr." and "San Jose Parish Hospital VS. Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur & Ors.".