Summary
An assessment order under the Maharashtra VAT Act and the CST Act bore the date 20 March 2020. Without appealing, the assessee filed a writ petition alleging that the order was actually passed in July 2020, after limitation had expired. The Bombay High Court entertained the petition under Article 226 and quashed the assessment and the demand notice. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal. The statutes provide an appeal to the first appellate authority and a further appeal or revision to the Tribunal. The date of the order was a seriously disputed question of fact, and no valid reason was shown for bypassing the statutory remedy. The question was whether the writ should be entertained, not whether it was maintainable. The writ petition was dismissed and the assessee relegated to appeal, to be heard on merits without any objection of limitation if filed within four weeks.
Issues
- Whether the High Court should have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 against an assessment order under the MVAT Act and CST Act when a statutory appeal was available
- Whether a disputed allegation that the assessment order was antedated beyond limitation justified bypassing the appellate remedy
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaAlthough the writ petition was maintainable, judicial prudence required the High Court to decline to entertain it against an assessment order where the fiscal statute provides a hierarchy of appeals and the facts were seriously disputed. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit statutory procedures. Revenue matters with available statutory remedies are not cases for bypassing them. Where a statutory forum exists, especially under a fiscal statute, a writ petition should ordinarily not be entertained (Satyawati Tondon, Titaghur Paper Mills, Raj Kumar Shivhare). (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The decisions relied on by the assessee concern maintainability, but the real issue is whether to entertain a writ petition against an assessment while bypassing the appeal. Whether the order was passed on 20 March 2020 or 14 July 2020 was a serious factual dispute, and no valid reason was shown for not appealing. An adverse first-appellate decision in an earlier year did not make the appeal a formality. (¶¶ 5.2, 8)
- The High Court therefore erred in entertaining the writ petition and should have relegated the assessee to the statutory appeal and further remedies. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the writ petition dismissed. The assessee was relegated to the statutory appeal, to be decided on merits without objection of limitation if filed within four weeks, with no opinion expressed on the merits.