At this stage, a recent decision of this Cor r of I lte State v. Greali Ltrnited

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KUMAR HARSHAVARDHAT FOR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, li recial Govt pleader for State Tax SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKE\" r The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CITAI,APATHI RAO W.P.No.33665 OIr 2025 ORDER: (per tton bta.\ri .lu:;ritt l'Sunt Kos/nl Heard Mr. Kurnar Harshavardhan. lcarrred counsel representing Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeva. learnr'd ccrunscl firr the petitioner and Mr. Sr.varoop Oorilla. lcarned Spccial Governrnent Pleader lbr the State Tax tbr the respondcnts. PerLrsecl thc rccold.

2. The present is second round ol- writ petition pref-errcd by the petitioner. The earlier was W.P.No. 16,167 of 202-5, decidcd on

23.06.2025. The petitioner at that point oltime had challengr.d the order of thc Rcvisional ALrthoritl, c{ateil I 1.0(r.l0l-5 on the ground that the petitioner's rcctitlcation application and r-cpcated representation are alI pending consideration, ln thc nreanu,hilc, the order dated 11.06.2025 was passed considering the total luctual matrix of the case. The Division Bench ol't.his Fligh Courl disposcd of the writ petition by making the fo[lowing observattons:

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. lt is agreecj that since the petitioner's representations dated 01.1 1 2022, 02.11 2022 and 2 04 11.2022 are pendrng consideration before he 2nd respondenUcompetent authority, the impugned ori| r dared 11.06 2425, may be set aside and the said responcrcr mav be directed to take a decisron on the said representatrl rs wrtirn fifteen days from the date of communication of this o r er ln view of consensus arrived at, the tmpugf ld order 4 dated 11 06.2025 is set aside. The 2"d respondent/1)r mpetent authonty shall decide the representations, in accorc:1ce h,ith law, wthrn fifteen days from the date of receipt cf z copy of thrs order 5 Accordingly the Wnt Petition is disposed o without expressing any opinton on the merits. At this st ge the petitioner undertakes to appear before t re )nd respondent/com petent authority on 09.O7.2025 at I 30 hM and for this purpose, no notice will be required to t ( ssued. No costs.

3. I)ursuant to the disposal of the said n,r-i petition, tlie r'.'spondents tooli up the repre scntation that the pct ir i rncr had ll Icd and aficr hearirrg the parlics, has now passed ll iesh ordcr on

28.07.2025, witlr its conscquential order bcirrr- passed

20.09.2025 tu'ltich has now been challenged thrcrr r .r the pre scnt writ petitior.r befirrc this Cour1.

4. '['he substantive contention of the petitioner ,r is that in the representatior-r u,hich was referred to before the rvr.r (lorrrl in tlie earlier round ol w,rit petition, the petitioner has rais: I thc issuc ir-r 3 respect of three points, patticularly peftainirtg l-o transit salc. high sea sale and SEZ sale. According to the pctitioner, so l'ar as the transit salc, SEZ sale are concemed, thc Revisional ALrthority after clue consideration of the represcntation have decided the issue in lavour of the assesses and has reduced thc additional tax liability tiom Rs. 5,39,38,1 37 I - to I{s.2,98,94,tt98/-.

5. fhc contention of thc petitioner is that as regards the issuc of high sea sales, the Revisioanl Authority has not dealt ri'ith thc satne and have thus violated the earlier ordcr of this Clourt in thc catlier rvrit petition and had prayed for sctlirrg aside ol'the irnpuu.ncd order and the rnatter be remanded back to thc authority concerned lbr a tiesh considelation on the aspect ol'high sca sales.

6. 'fhe learned Special Goventrncnt Pleadcr, on the other hand, opposing the contentions of the petitioner submits that at thc outset the writ petition cannot be maintainable as the order is one rvhich is appealable, secondly the ground that thc pctitioner has raised again is not conect as the point of high sea sales also has been duly considered, bui has not gone in favour of the asessee' Thus, it cannot be said that the authority has not considered the aspcct, as 4 the irnpLrgned ordcr itself rvould go to reflect the r', nsiclcration oi the ob jcction ils lcgards the high sea sales e'c c()nc:erncd Ihcrelirrt'. the ]calrrcd Special (iovemment Plea,i :r u ls of thc contcntion that thcre was ho violation of any prinr i rlcs o1'natural justice as has bccn contended by the leamed rr unscl tbr the petrtroncr 1 . I Iar ing dulr consideled the submissions put brlh on cither siclc- anil on penrsal ol'the record, particularly on th asl',cct ol- tlrc question ol high sca salcs arc concerned, the i'r pu-errcd or-der speciIicrrll1, r-eflccts ol'the authority having taken ur that issue but alier rcllsinq to intcrfcre with thc same on the grour I that the said aspcct alreadi.' stood concluded earlier and, therefb ^ , wirs bevond the pun ie* of thc rcvisional authority. Moleover. rvhat is also apparcnll) cvident liorn the bare perusal of thc pro,: cdings is that pursuarlt to the carlier order this High court in W I.No lt6467 of 2(125, dccidcd on 23.06.2025, the respondent autho ities did takc up the nrattcr o1- thc petitioner and have duly scrutin zed the sanrc and the petitioners have in fhct been provided v,r .h substantial relicf ol'rcclucir-rg thc tax liability that was earli: asscssed of Rs.5,39,38, ll7l- and have reduced it to R:. 1.9ii,94.898/- ! t t I t i I l i : , I I 5 Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have decided the matter with a closed mind or with a pre-detennincd approach In vieri' of thc same, u,e are of the considered opinion that the rnatter is not ouc which needs to be taken up invoking tlic rvrit jurisdiction undcr Artiole 226 ol the Constitution of lndia, rather since thcrc is already a statutory rernedy of appeal available. u,ould be open lirr the pctitioner to, if hc so \\ ar1LS. assail thc impugned order by way of statutory appeal. The -i, icu' ol'this C'ourt stands tbrti fied fiom the decision of- the Hon'blc Suprctnc Court in the case oISTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHF]R vs. COMMERCTAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BLjILDING COMPANY LIMITED', whereby the Ilon'ble Suprenre Courl relerring to a selies of judgments in paragraph 5, (r antl 7 has held as under "5. While entertaining the writ petition under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia challenging the Assessment Order denying the lnput rebate, the High Court has observed that there are no disputed question of facts arise and it rs 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 petrtion under Article 226 of the '2922\CC Onl-ine SC 1425 6 Cor'rstrtution of lndra challenging the Asse:;1 ment Order derrying the Input rebate against which a sta:r tory remedy of appeal was available.

6. At this stage, a recent decision of this Cor r of I lte State of Maharashtra v. Greali Ltrnited (Civil Appeai No. 4956 of 2022, 20.09.2022) is required to be referred to. Af1€ rn the case rip (lndia) lecided on - takrng into considerataon the earlier decision of this Cour of Llnited Bank of lndia v. Satyawati Tondon (20 1 0) 8 SCC 1 10. it is observed and held I in the case reported in rat in a tax matter when a statutory remedy of appeal is z /ailable, the Hrgn Court ought not to have entertained th,) writ petition under Arlicie 226 of lhe Constitutron of lndit Assessment Order by-passing the statutory appeal While holding so, this Court co-r observations made by this Court in paragra r tn Satyawati Iondon (supra), which read as urt agarnst the remedy of ;rdered the rs 49 to 53 ler: ORDER WP.No.33665 of 2025 :\ z i4-i:r 0 + t,; 2n25 i' r-; i r-) i \ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ad rl N-