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. The reasoning was that all the issues raised by the petitioner, including those related to the newly collected declaration forms and other contentions, could be effectively dealt with by the appellate authority in the first appeal. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available, especially when the petitioner has the opportunity to present new evidence before the appellate forum. The operative direction was to grant the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, with pre-deposit calculated after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority. The issue of whether the provisional assessment order was legally valid on its merits 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, Bhubaneswar, under Rule 12(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that subsequent to the assessment order, they collected a substantial number of declaration forms which 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 necessary pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority, whose calculation would be verified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order of provisional assessment when an alternative remedy of appeal is available and the petitioner claims to have subsequently obtained crucial documents (declaration forms) for their defense? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial declaration forms after the assessment order was passed, which could impact the disputed turnover. They also raised other contentions that were not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the court's decision implies that the Revenue likely contended that the available alternative remedy of appeal should be pursued.