M/S.Dayalal Meghji And Company vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

M/s.Dayalal Meghji and Company, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.12.2018 (Form GST MOV-09) passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-3, Belagavi, the respondent. The order imposed a demand of tax and penalty. The petitioner's primary contention was that the demand was levied for an inconsequential error in mentioning the vehicle number. The petitioner argued that a Circular issued by the Government of India dated 14.09.2018 addresses such minor lapses and suggests a payment of Rs. 1,000/- as adequate. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested reconsideration in light of this circular. The respondent argued that an alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Held

The Court held that notwithstanding the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, the writ petition was an appropriate case to be entertained due to the petitioner's contention that the order was contrary to a Circular which covered the issue. The Court set aside the impugned order (Annexure-H) and remanded the matter to the respondent. The respondent was directed to reconsider the order of demand of tax and penalty in light of the Circular dated 14.09.2018. The Court further stated that if the respondent was of the view that the Circular did not cover the issue, it was open for him to issue a fresh order of payment of tax and penalty. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for the release of the vehicle was to remain in operation until the respondent took a fresh decision. The issue of whether the Circular was directly applicable was not definitively decided, but the matter was remanded for reconsideration based on it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, given the petitioner's contention that the impugned order is contrary to a binding Circular? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Government of India, which suggests a nominal penalty for minor lapses, is applicable to the facts of this case, specifically concerning an error in the vehicle number mentioned in the demand order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, imposing a substantial tax and penalty for a minor error in the vehicle number, was contrary to the Government of India's Circular dated 14.09.2018. This circular, produced as Annexure-H, reportedly states that a payment of Rs. 1,000/- would be adequate for minor lapses. The petitioner contended that the court should quash the order and direct the respondent to reconsider the matter in light of this circular. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that an alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order and, therefore, the writ petition ought not to be entertained.