M/S. Marico Limited vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding the assessment being based on MRP instead of the actual sale price ought to have been raised before the appellate forum. The Court found that the petitioner had not made out a case for assessment without jurisdiction or in breach of the principles of natural justice, which would warrant the invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay of over two years in approaching the High Court after the assessment order was passed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and had not presented sufficient grounds to justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction after such a considerable delay. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Marico Limited, Vijayawada, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated January 7, 2019, passed by the second respondent. The order imposed IGST of Rs. 3,10,642/- and a penalty of Rs. 3,10,642/-. The assessment pertained to a consignment of coconut oil delivered by M/s. Marico Limited, Puducherry, to the petitioner. Specifically, tax and penalty totaling Rs. 1,55,321/- were levied for each of the two vehicles involved in the consignment. The petitioner did not challenge the assessment order through the statutory appeal mechanism and instead approached the High Court after a delay of over two years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when a statutory appeal remedy was available and not availed by the petitioner, particularly after a significant delay of over two years? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment was made incorrectly, taking into consideration the maximum retail price (MRP) instead of the actual sale price. This, they implied, constituted a jurisdictional error or a breach of natural justice, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the respondents, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue would have argued that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies and that the issue raised by the petitioner was a matter for the appellate forum.