M/S Empowertrans PVT.LTD. vs. The Sales Tax Officer, CT And GST Circle, Bbsr

Held

The Court held that all issues raised by the petitioner could be effectively dealt with by the appellate authority. While refraining from exercising its writ jurisdiction, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was permitted to make the pre-deposit after deducting the turnover attributable to the declaration forms they intended to submit. The First Appellate Authority was directed to verify this calculation and determine the final pre-deposit amount. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appellate remedies are to be preferred over writ jurisdiction, especially when the appellate forum can adequately address the grievances and subsequent developments.

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order of provisional assessment dated 18.02.2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar-IV, under Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that they had subsequently collected numerous declaration forms which were available for production. 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 they intended to produce before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was tasked with verifying this calculation and passing further directions regarding the pre-deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, considering they have subsequently collected declaration forms that were not available at the time of the provisional assessment order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial declaration forms subsequent to the provisional assessment order, which they intended to produce before the appellate authority. They sought to avail this opportunity to reduce the disputed amount. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the Revenue regarding the petitioner's arguments or the procedural aspects of filing an appeal. The Court's decision to allow the appeal suggests that the Revenue did not oppose this procedural relief.