Tvl. Vetri Motors Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, the Court found that the petitioner had not established any exceptions warranting writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that assessment of facts should be carried out by the appellate authority and that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when statutory remedies are available, unless specific exceptions are met. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge the assessment order. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, The Vetri Motors Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated July 31, 2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2019-2020. The petitioner's counsel presented three grounds for challenging the assessment order. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not established any grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the appropriate forum to entertain a challenge to an assessment order when statutory remedies are available, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and devoid of merits, necessitating intervention by the High Court. They sought to quash the order and have the assessment redone. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.