Summary
An assessing officer under the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 denied the assessee input rebate under Section 14. Instead of appealing under Section 46(1), the assessee filed a writ petition, which the High Court entertained over the State's objection because no facts were disputed; it quashed the assessment and allowed the rebate. The Supreme Court set that judgment aside without examining the merits. The absence of disputed facts is no valid reason to bypass a statutory appeal against an assessment order. Following Greatship (India) and Satyawati Tondon, a High Court should not entertain an Article 226 petition in a tax matter where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. The assessee was relegated to the appellate authority, which must decide an appeal filed within four weeks on merits, without raising limitation and uninfluenced by the High Court's observations.
Issues
- Whether the High Court should have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 against an assessment order denying input rebate under the MP VAT Act, 2002 when a statutory appeal under Section 46(1) was available.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe writ jurisdiction should not have been exercised to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal in a revenue matter. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
- Sections 14 and 46(1), Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002The denial of input rebate under Section 14 was appealable under Section 46(1), and the assessee was relegated to that remedy. (¶¶ 2, 7, 8)
Held
- That a case involves no disputed questions of fact and can be decided on admitted facts is not a good ground to entertain a writ petition against an assessment order where a statutory appeal is available. (¶ 5)
- In tax matters, where a statutory remedy of appeal exists, the High Court ought not to entertain a writ petition bypassing it, as reiterated in Greatship (India) relying on Satyawati Tondon. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The assessee was relegated to file an appeal under Section 46(1) within four weeks, to be decided on merits without objection as to limitation, subject to statutory requirements; no view was expressed on the input rebate. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside and the writ petition dismissed on the ground of an alternative statutory remedy, with liberty to appeal under Section 46(1) within four weeks; no costs.