Smt. Majusha Sanjith vs. Sales Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Manjusha Sanjith, proprietor of Waterline Industries, challenged an order dated 30.12.2017, issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, by the Sales Tax Officer, SGST Department. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 10.01.2018. The respondent is the Sales Tax Officer, SGST Department. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history indicates the writ petition has been pending for seven years.

Held

The Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner involve factual disputes, which are matters that ought to be appreciated in an appeal. Consequently, the Court found that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy for the grievances projected in this writ petition. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. However, acknowledging the period the petitioner spent pursuing this writ petition from 10.01.2018 until the date of the judgment, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue her statutory remedies. The time spent in the writ proceedings will be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the appropriate remedy for the grievances projected by the petitioner, considering the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. Petitioner's argument: Not explicitly recorded. The petitioner has approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. Respondent's argument: The respondent, through the Senior Government Pleader, implicitly argued that the contentions raised involve factual disputes and are matters that should be appreciated in an appeal, suggesting that a writ petition is not the proper forum.