M/S.Millenium Products 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 effectively dealt with by the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that the appellate forum is designed to examine such contentions, including the impact of newly collected declaration forms and other arguments presented by the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory appeal remedy is available and capable of addressing the grievances, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere under its writ jurisdiction. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, along with the necessary pre-deposit. The pre-deposit was to be calculated after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms that would be produced before the First Appellate Authority, and this calculation was to be verified by the First Appellate Authority.

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 Court noted that these issues could be dealt with by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the provisional assessment order, considering the availability of an appellate remedy? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had collected crucial declaration forms after the provisional assessment order was passed, which would impact the assessment. They also raised other contentions regarding the assessment itself. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the Court's decision implies that the Revenue likely contended that the statutory appellate mechanism was the appropriate forum for resolving these disputes.