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

Held

The High Court held that it would refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the matter, as all issues raised by the petitioner could be dealt with by the appellate authority in the first appeal. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The pre-deposit for the appeal was to be calculated after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms that the petitioner intended to produce before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was directed to verify this calculation, subject to any further directions regarding the pre-deposit. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the declaration forms or other issues, leaving them to be adjudicated by the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging 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 which were available for production. The petitioner also raised other contentions. 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, along with the necessary pre-deposit. The pre-deposit was to be calculated after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority, whose verification was subject to further directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order of provisional assessment when an alternative remedy of appeal is available, and if so, under what circumstances? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal beyond the prescribed period or with modified pre-deposit requirements, considering the subsequent collection of declaration forms? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial declaration forms after the provisional assessment order was passed, which would impact the turnover and the amount in dispute. They also raised other unspecified contentions. The petitioner sought to avail these forms in their appeal. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, the Revenue was represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel.