The State of Maharashtra and Others vs Greatship (India) Limited

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

20 September 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

Citation

[2022] 4 S.C.R. 840 : 2022 INSC 991

Headnote

Alternate Remedy – Availability of – Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ petition under, entertainability of – Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 – s.23 – Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Assessment order passed by the assessing authority determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the aforesaid Acts – Respondent-assessee filed writ petition challenging the assessment order inter alia on the ground of limitation – High Court set aside the assessment order and the demand notice – On appeal, held: The statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal – Thus, when there is an alternate/statutory remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provision – High Court seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 226 against the assessment order, bypassing the statutory remedies – It ought to have relegated the respondent to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and thereafter to avail other remedies provided under the statute – No valid reasons shown by respondent to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal – Further, on facts there are serious disputes as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.20 or 14.07.20 (as alleged by the assessee) – Impugned judgment set aside – Writ petition filed before High Court is dismissed – Respondent relegated to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and other remedies available under the MVAT Act and CST Act.

United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110 : [2010] 9 SCR 1 – relied on. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983)

2 SCC 433 : [1983] 2 SCR 743; Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 466; Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of

Enforcement (2010) 4 SCC 772 : [2010] 4 SCR 608; M/s Filterco & Another v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Another (1986) 2 SCC 103 :

[1986] 1 SCR 239; Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU & Another v. Amara Raja Batteries Limited (2009) 8 SCC 209 : [2009] 11 SCR 953; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 92630 of 2020, by which the High Court has, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, set aside the assessment order passed by the assessing authority and also the belated notice of demand, the State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the present appeal. 2. That the respondent – original writ petitioner was subjected to proceedings u

View Subscription Plans →