M/S.Millenium Products And Service 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, as all issues raised by the petitioner could be effectively dealt with by the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal provided a more appropriate forum for resolving the disputes. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was permitted to make the pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms that would be produced before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was directed to verify this calculation and pass further directions regarding the pre-deposit. The original order under Annexure-2 series was to be returned to the petitioner upon substitution with photocopies for filing the appeal.

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 collected several declaration forms that could be produced. The Court noted that the petitioner raised various other contentions but found that all issues could be dealt with by the appellate authority. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, with necessary pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain the 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 before the appellate authority. They also raised other contentions, which were not detailed in the judgment but were impliedly part of their challenge to the provisional assessment. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no 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 remedy of appeal was the appropriate recourse.