M/S.Millenium Porducts And Services vs. The Sales Tax Officer,CT And GST Circle

Held

The Court held that it would refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in this matter, as all the issues raised by the petitioner could be dealt with by the appellate authority in the first appeal. The Court reasoned that the alternative remedy of appeal was available and appropriate for adjudicating the petitioner's contentions, including the production of subsequent declaration forms. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as an appeal, exists. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, with a direction for pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority, whose calculation would be verified. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging an order of provisional assessment dated 06.08.2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar-IV, under Rule-12(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that subsequent to the assessment order, they had collected a substantial number of declaration forms that were available for production. The petitioner also raised other contentions. The High Court, while refraining from exercising its writ jurisdiction, granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was also directed to make the necessary pre-deposit, deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority, whose calculation would be verified by the said authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's challenge to the provisional assessment order when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial declaration forms subsequent to the assessment order, which could be produced. They also raised various other contentions. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the Court's decision to direct the petitioner to file an appeal implies that the Revenue's position, or at least the procedural availability of appeal, was considered valid.