Constitution of India: Art.226 – Writ jurisdiction in tax matters – Writ petition filed challenging order of asssessing officer denying input rebate under s.14 of MP VAT Act, 2002 – Entertainability of – Held: High Court ought not to entertain the writ petition under Art.226 challenging the assessment order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory appeal would be available under s.46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002 – Alternative efficacious remedy. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: While entertaining the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate, the High Court has observed that there are no disputed question of facts arise and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for. The aforesaid can hardly be a good/valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory remedy of appeal was available. The original writ petitioner is to be relegated to prefer an appeal against the Assessment Order passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur, which may be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002. [Paras 5, 7][987-E-F; 991-F]
The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Greatship (India) Limited [2022] 13 SCALE 770; United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8 SCC
110 : [2010] 9 SCR 1 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.