AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Mishra, J
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment order passed
under Section 25(7) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2005’ for brevity) for the
assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 dated 28.01.2021 (Annexure-3 colly), and the assessment order passed under Section 29(1) for the assessment
yars 2018-19 & 2019-20 (Annexure-4 colly), and to further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to commence de novo fresh
assessment proceedings, after providing the petitioner, a copy of the SIB report and after issuing a specific show cause notice to the petitioner for both
the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20.
Admittedly, an alternative efficacious remedy is available under Section 51 of the Act of 2005 to the petitioner. So, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy, rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. P.R. Mullick, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has very emphatically relied upon the following six judgments:
(I) Raghuvar Mondal Hari Har Mondal vs. State of Bihar, 1957 AIR 810
(II) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC)
(III) Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 395
(IV) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eicher Ltd., (2007) 163 Taxman 259 (Delhi)
(V) Vehalana Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., 2008 (ADJ) 628
(VI) M/s Neelkanth Sweets vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. (Trade Tax Revision No. 13 of 2013)
And, thereafter, contended that a writ petition is even maintainable against an order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority.
This Court asked Mr. P.R. Mullick, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, thrice, to take the Court to that portion of the aforesaid
judgments where any ratio about the maintainability of a writ petition against an order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority have been laid
down. But he could not show the same. Further, he failed to point out from the aforesaid judgments cited by him in this case that in the case of
availability of an alternative efficacious remedy, a writ application should be entertained without making out any special case, like violation of principles
of natural justice, etc.
Though it is submitted by Mr. P.R. Mullick, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in
this case in the sense that a copy of the SIB report was not given to the assesse, we are of the view that this aspect can be looked into by the
Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the Act of 2005, but Mr. P.R. Mullick, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has a grievance that in case of
an appeal under Section 51 of the Act of 2005, the petitioner will have to deposit a statutory amount, which the petitioner is not in a position to bear.
Only for that grievance, this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
No order as to costs.