Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 701 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Validity of assessment order - works contract - transfer of the property took place on the ONGC platform - part of the State of Maharashtra or not - movement of goods from the State of Maharashtra to Mumbai High - inter-state sale or local sale - case of petitioner is that the transfer of the property in goods imported in execution of the work contract is outside the State of Maharashtra and thus the State of Maharashtra has no jurisdiction to levy tax - concept of a separate delivery of such goods in such a contract - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer on 30th December, 2015 under section 23(4) of MVAT Act. Under section 26 of the MVAT Act, the remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 23(4) of MVAT Act is available. The Supreme Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS VERSUS CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with the order of assessment passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held that it is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction of High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule self-imposed limitation. It is essentially the rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than the rule of law. High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. If this Court entertains this petition impugning the assessment order without directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available under section 26 of the MVAT Act and if the petition is rejected on its own merits, the petitioner in that event would not be able to subsequently avail of alternative remedy by way of an appeal under section 26 of the MVAT Act which would be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. On this ground also we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition impugning the assessment order directly in this writ petition. The petitioner has not made out any exceptional circumstances to entertain the petition for entertaining the writ petition without availing alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy under section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 not availed by the petitioner.
|