The Bombay High Court ruled that the writ petition is not maintainable as Statutory Alternative Remedy is available for under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT).
An order passed by the Sales Tax Officer could be challenged by an aggrieved assessee, Sony Sales Corporation in an appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act. The time period for filing an appeal, we are informed, is 60 days. Without carrying the orders aforesaid dated May 16, 2019, and October 30, 2019, in an appeal under Section 26 of the MVAT Act within the stipulated time, the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. There is no reason or explanation as to why the writ petition was not instituted, at least within the stipulated period for preferring an appeal. Although the law of limitation is not applicable to writ proceedings, delay and laches are factors that the Court ought to bear in mind while entertaining a writ petition. Certainly, a litigant cannot knock the doors of the High Court at leisure after the lapse of the time period for preferring an appeal. In such a case, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary power.
The division bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice G.S.Kulkarni said that the MVAT Act was introduced with the object of consolidating and amending the law relating to the levy and collection of tax on the sale and purchase of certain goods in the State of Maharashtra. Complete machinery is envisaged for the purposes of levy of tax and its collection, which is in the nature of liability for the assessee, as well as providing avenues to seek relief in respect of improper or erroneous orders made by the authorities vested with the power to levy and collect tax, which is in the nature of a right of the assessee.
The High Court held that the MVAT requires the relevant authority, at or about the time an adjudication is in progress, to ascertain facts and apply the law that is applicable to a particular situation, to return findings on each and every point that would arise in course of the proceedings and to end his order by recording his conclusions. Should the party proceed against feeling aggrieved by an order passed under the MVAT Act, a complete hierarchy of appellate authority/court is provided thereunder. Invocation of the High Court’s power to issue high prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to levy and collection of tax, in view of such fora made available by the statute, ought not to be permitted as a matter of course or else the will of the people expressed by the legislature in the relevant enactment would be rendered nugatory.
“It is only in very exceptional cases when a party complains of infringement of fundamental rights, or where facts are not disputed and such party establishes assumption of jurisdiction by an authority without being possessed thereof, or the complaint of a violation of natural justice is so pronounced and gross, that a writ court in the judicious exercise of its discretion may choose to interfere,” the court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
