Ms Bajrangi Enterprises Through One Its Partners Navin Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of whether there was a delay in tax payment or the applicability of the cited judgment. Instead, the Court focused on the preliminary objections raised by the respondents. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed after a delay of two years from the date of the impugned order dated March 5, 2020. It also acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. Given the delay and the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ application. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate forum. This appellate forum would be at liberty to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, including the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, in accordance with the law. The issue of payability of interest was thus left to be adjudicated by the appellate forum.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bajrangi Enterprises, filed a writ application before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated March 5, 2020, which imposed interest liability for belated payment of tax. The petitioner contended that there was no delay in payment, rendering the imposition of interest unsustainable. The respondents, Union of India and tax authorities, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They argued that the petitioner approached the court after two years from the impugned order and that an alternative remedy of appeal was available. The respondents further stated that the issue of payment of interest, if already paid, could not be adjudicated by the High Court in a writ petition and should be addressed before the appropriate appellate forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, considering the delay in filing and the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, as per the contentions of the respondents. 2. Whether the imposition of interest liability on the petitioner for belated payment of tax is sustainable in law, as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that there was no delay in tax payment, and therefore, the direction to pay interest was not legally tenable. The petitioner also relied on the judgment in Mahadeo Construction Company v. Union of India, 2020 SCC Online (Jhr.) 1972, suggesting the matter was covered by this precedent. Respondents' Contention: The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the two-year delay in filing and the existence of an alternative appellate remedy. They argued that the issue of whether interest was paid and whether it was due is a matter for adjudication by the appropriate forum through an appeal, not by the High Court in a writ proceeding.