M.B.S.Impex Private Limited D.No.5-9-45, Aashi Towers vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Cct Office

Held

The Court held that writ petitions can only be entertained on established grounds of violation of principles of natural justice or an error of jurisdiction. The petitioner's grievance that the Assessing Officer did not consider available records or apply their mind to the facts does not fall within these narrow grounds for writ intervention. The Court reasoned that such issues are procedural irregularities that can and should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions. However, to provide relief, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the statutory appellate authority within two weeks of the judgment. The Court further directed that the period during which the writ petitions were pending should be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation or delay in filing the statutory appeal. The impugned orders were to be returned to the petitioner to facilitate the filing of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M.B.S. Impex Private Limited, filed two writ petitions challenging orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer on May 22, 2017, and May 20, 2017. These orders pertained to the periods April 2014 to March 2016 and April 2013 to March 2014, respectively. The petitioner's primary contention was that the Assessing Officer passed these orders without properly considering the existing records, leading to the disallowance of input tax credit previously granted. The writ petitions were filed in July 2017, approximately two months after the impugned orders were passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging an order of assessment on grounds of non-consideration of records or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer, when such grounds do not fall within the established parameters for entertaining writ petitions, namely, violation of principles of natural justice or error of jurisdiction? (This issue turns on the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer failed to consider available records, rendering the assessment orders improper and lacking due application of mind. They sought the High Court's intervention to address this procedural deficiency. Revenue's argument: The respondents (Commercial Tax Department) contended that the grounds raised by the petitioner, specifically the alleged non-consideration of records and lack of application of mind, are matters that should be agitated before the statutory appellate authority and do not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.