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 the matter. The reasoning was that all the issues raised by the petitioner, including the availability of subsequent declaration forms and other contentions, could be adequately dealt with by the appellate authority in the first appeal. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies, such as appeals, should be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, especially when the appellate authority is empowered to consider all relevant facts and evidence, including newly acquired documents. The operative direction was to grant the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, subject to pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced, with the First Appellate Authority to verify the calculation and issue further directions on pre-deposit. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging an order of provisional assessment dated 29.06.2018, 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 directed to make the necessary pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was to verify this calculation and pass further directions regarding the pre-deposit.

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 under the relevant rules. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they had collected substantial declaration forms subsequent to the provisional assessment order, which could impact the disputed turnover. They also raised other contentions. The implication is that these subsequent developments and other issues warranted direct intervention by the High Court. 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 likely contended that the statutory appellate mechanism was the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute, including the issue of newly collected declaration forms and other contentions.