M/S.Panchamukhi Traders vs. Sales Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that since an appeal is provided under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) against the impugned order dated 10th March, 2016, it was not inclined to interfere at that stage. The Court permitted the Petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy in accordance with law. The reasoning was based on the availability of a statutory alternative remedy. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file an appeal not later than 2nd January, 2023, along with an application for condonation of delay, explaining the delay due to the pendency of the writ petition. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Panchamukhi Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack challenging an order dated 10th March, 2016, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I. The specific amount in dispute is not recorded. The writ petition was filed in 2016. The Opposite Parties were the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, and others. The Court noted that an appeal remedy is available under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) against the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the OVAT Act, 2004? The Petitioner, M/s. Panchamukhi Traders, likely argued for the High Court's intervention, possibly on grounds of procedural irregularities or fundamental flaws in the impugned order, despite the existence of an appeal mechanism. The Revenue, represented by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, would have contended that the statutory appeal remedy under the OVAT Act is the appropriate and efficacious recourse for the petitioner to challenge the order, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each party, but the Court's decision to direct the petitioner to the appellate authority implies the Revenue's stance was considered.