M/S.Millenium Products And Services vs. Sales Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that it would refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the matter. The reasoning was that all the issues raised by the petitioner could be effectively dealt with by the appellate authority in the first appeal. The ratio decidendi is that where an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and the issues raised can be adequately addressed by the appellate forum, the High Court should ordinarily relegate the petitioner to that remedy. The operative direction was to grant the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, along with the necessary pre-deposit. This pre-deposit was to be calculated after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms that would be produced before the First Appellate Authority, and this calculation was to be verified by the appellate authority, subject to any further directions regarding the pre-deposit. The issue of the validity of the provisional assessment order itself was expressly left to be decided by the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging an order of provisional assessment dated 06.08.2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar-IV, under Rule-12(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that subsequent to the assessment order, they had 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. The petitioner was directed to make the necessary pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was to verify this calculation and pass further directions regarding the pre-deposit.

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 contention: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial declaration forms subsequent to the assessment order and raised various other contentions that warranted consideration. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, the Court's decision to direct the petitioner to file an appeal implies an acknowledgment of the alternative remedy.