TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit into the Government Treasury a sum of ₹ 24,52,973/-. 2. The facts leading to filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner was paying Value Added Tax (for short VAT ) @ 5% on cell phone chargers, which were being sold along with cell phones in a single package, while those were in fact taxable @ 13.75%. The Excise and Taxation Officer issued notice to the petitioner under Section 16(8) of the VAT Act, directing it to produce all its returns with TR s, balance sheet, total number of cell phone charges sold and copies of assessment orders, if any, for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 (up to 30.11.2014). 3. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted that the cell phone chargers were being sold with cell phones in a single package and therefore, could not be taxed separately. It is further contended that cell phone chargers, which had no separate value, were being sold with the cell phones in a single package and therefore, could not be taxed separately. 4. The Assessing Authority considered the submissions of the petitioner and held that the entry No. 60 (f) (vii) of Part-II A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the procedure followed during the hearing of the case, it does not follow that the authority has acted without jurisdiction. It may make the order irregular or defective, but the order cannot be a nullity so long as it has been passed by an authority which was competent to pass the order. There is basic difference between want of jurisdiction and an illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction and if there is noncompliance of rules of procedure, the same cannot be a ground for granting one of the writs prayed for. In either case, the defect, if any, can according to the procedure established by law be corrected only by a court of appeal or revision. 7. In Janardhan Reddy others vs. The State of Hyderabad others AIR 1951 SC 217, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 6. . But, for the purpose of the present case, it is sufficient to point out that even if we assume that there was some defect in the procedure folld. at the trial, it does not follow that the trial Ct. acted without jurisdiction. There is a basic difference between want of jurisdiction an illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, our attention has not been drawn to any author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. 36. Salmond in his well-known work states; The theory of case law is that a judge does not make law; he merely declares it; and the overruling of a previous decision is a declaration that the supposed rule never was law. Hence any intermediate transactions made on the strength of the supposed rule are governed by the law established in the overruling decision. The overruling is retrospective, except as regards matters that are res judicatae or accounts that have been settled in the meantime . (emphasis supplied) 11. In so far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, the facts herein are similar to the ones in M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. case (supra), wherein this court was confronted with the proposition regarding the maintainability of the petition when an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty Excise and Taxation Commissioner or by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner posted at the State Headquarters or by the Commissioner or any officer, on whom the powers of the Commissioner are conferred, shall be further appealable to the Tribunal. (3) Every order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner or any officer exercising the powers of the Commissioner or the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner posted at the State Headquarters or the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner or of the Assessing Authority or an officer in-charge of check-post or barrier or any other officer not below the rank of an Excise and Taxation Officer, if not challenged in appeal or revision, shall be final. (4) No appeal shall be entertained unless it is filed within sixty days from the date of communication of the order appealed against, or such longer period as the Appellate Authority may allow, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) No appeal under sub-section (1) shall be entertained by an Appellate Authority unless such appeal is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax (including interest payable) or of the penalty, if any, imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder if it involves any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law. (2) The application for revision under sub-section (1) shall precisely state the question of law involved in the order, and it shall be competent for the High Court to formulate the question of law. (3) Where an application under this section is pending, the High Court may, or on application, in this behalf, stay recovery of any disputed amount of tax, penalty or interest payable or refund of any amount due under the order sought to be revised: Provided that no order for stay of recovery of such disputed amount shall remain in force for more than 30 days unless the applicant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority concerned. (4) The application for revision under sub-section (1) or the application for stay under sub-section (3) shall be heard and decided by a bench consisting of not less than two judges. (5) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. Provision of sub section (1) of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250. In the said decision, this Court was pleased to observe that: (SCC p.88, para 23) 23. . when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner and all the -other forums and modes of seeking remedy are excluded. 9. A Bench of three learned Judges of as Court, in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433, held: (SCC p.440, para 11) 11......The Act provides for a complete-machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for 1 enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must be availed.... 10. In other words, existence of an adequate alternate remedy is a factor to be considered by the writ court before exercising its writ jurisdiction (See Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2011) 14 SCC 337 , after discussing its various earlier decisions, held that the High Court had committed error in entertaining the writ petition without noticing and referring to the relevant provisions of law applicable in that case, which contained statutory remedy of appeal and accordingly set aside the order of the High Court in terms of which the writ petition was entertained. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 24 and 25 hereunder: 24. Section 19 provides for remedy of appeal against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 17. If Sections 11, 17 and 21 of the 1986 Act which relate to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, there does not appear any plausible reason to interpret the same in a manner which would frustrate the object of legislation. 25. What has surprised us is that the High Court has not even referred to Sections 17 and 19 of the 1986 Act and the law laid down in various judgments of this Court and yet it has declared that the directions given by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and that too by overlooking the availabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed restraint that the writ petition will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and observed: (AIR p. 1423, para 7). 7. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) 11. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569) 14. In Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 651, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and observed: (SCC p.653, para 8) 8. Before we discuss the correctness of the impugned order, we intend to remind ourselves the observations made by this Court in Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, (1979) 3 SCC 83. In the said decision, this Court was pleased to observe that: (SCC p. 88, para 23). 23. when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all the other forums and modes of seeking [remedy] are excluded. Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited, Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and others and Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal , referred to hereinabove. 16. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the writ petitioners-Company have remedies of appeal(s), before approaching the High Court by way of the writ petitions, for the redressal of their grievances. The petitioners ought to have exhausted the remedy of appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner or Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner or the Excise Commissioner, as the case may be, and if the petitioners were not successful in those appeal proceedings, another remedy available to them was to challenge the said order(s) by the medium of appeal before the Tribunal, and again, if they were unsuccessful, they could have availed the remedy of revision before the High Court in terms of Section 48 of the HP VAT Act, 2005. Keeping in view the above discussion, read with the fact that the dispute raised in these writ petitions relates to revenue/tax matters, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners have sufficient efficacious remedy(ies) available. 17. It also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including Armed Forces Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.(Refer: L. Chandra (AIR 1997 SC 1125) and S.N. Mukherjee) (AIR 1990 SC 1984). (ii) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act.(Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd.). (iii) When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma). (iv) The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
