Shakun Enterprises PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxed And GST Odisha

Held

The High Court held that it would refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the present matter. The Court reasoned 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 when an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available, the High Court should ordinarily relegate the parties to that remedy, especially when the appellate authority has the power to examine all relevant evidence and arguments. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, along with the necessary pre-deposit. The petitioner was allowed to deduct the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority from the pre-deposit amount, with the calculation to be verified by the appellate authority. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order of provisional assessment dated 21.08.2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Territorial Range, Cuttack-II, Cuttack, 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 that were previously missing and are now available for production. The petitioner also raised other contentions. The High Court decided not to exercise its writ jurisdiction directly but allowed the petitioner to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was permitted to deduct the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the appellate authority from the pre-deposit amount, with the calculation to be verified by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the provisional assessment order, considering the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had collected crucial declaration forms after the provisional assessment order was passed, which would significantly impact the tax liability. They also raised other contentions that they believed warranted direct intervention by the High Court. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the Court's decision to direct the petitioner to the appellate authority implies a view that the appellate forum is the appropriate venue for resolving the dispute, including the admissibility and impact of the newly collected declaration forms.