The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m: \ be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant io Effectuat Order bearing A.O. No. 678 dated 20 09.2025, passed by the 4th Rcr pondent, under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, '1956, pending dispc; LI of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KUMAR HARSHAVARDHAN :tEpRESENTING SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR IIiTATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER ., THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI .IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATfII RAO W.P.No.33664 OF 2025 ORDER, (per tlon 'ble Sri .htstice P Sam Kollat,) Heard Mr. Kumar I{arshavaldhan. learned counsel representing Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya. leameci counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S'waroop Oorilla, lcarned Special Government Pleader fbr the State Tax for the respondents. Perused the record

2. The present is second round of rr,r-it petition prefened by the petitioner. The earlie-r rvas 1\i.P.No.16167 ol 2025, decided on 2f .06.2025. The petitioner at that point oltirne had challenged the order of the Revisional Authority' clatecl I 1.06.2025 on the ground that the petitioner's rectification application and repeated representatio6 are all pending consideration. Irr the meanwhile, the order dated 11.06.2025 was passcd considering the totai factual matrix of the case. The Division Bcnch of this I tigh Court disposed of the writ petition by mak-ing the following obser.vations:

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. lt is agreed that since the petitioner's representations dated 01 .1 1 .2022, 02.11 .2022 and \ 2

04.11.2022 are pending consideration before lhe 2nd respondenUcom petent authority, the impugned or j:,r, dated 11.06.2025, may be set aside and the said responder t may be directed to take a decision on the said representat c rrs within fifteen days from the date of communication of this cr :er 4 ln view of consensus arrived at, the impucr 3d order dated 11.06 2025 is set aside. The 2nd respondentt:'rmpetent authority shall decide the representations, in accor(li,nce with law, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of i copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed cf without expressing any opinion on the merits. At this rjlege, the petitioner undertakes to appear before he 2nd respondenUcompetent authority on 09.07.2025 at 1130 At/ and for this purpose, no notice will be required to ) issued. No costs.

3. Pursuant to the disposal of the said rvr r perition, the lespondents took up the representation that the pettt ]ner had filed and after lrearing the parlies, has now passed 1'esh order on

28.07.2025 \\,ith its consequential order beirrl pirssed olt

20.09.2025,,which has now been challenged rhrorLl h rhe presenr rvrit petition before this Courl.

4. The substantive contention of the petitioner r as that in the representation which was referred to before the r.l,:.i1. Court in the earlier round of writ petition, the petitioner has rai:r( d the issue in ./:r" 3 respcct of three points, parlicularly pertaining to transit sale, high sea sale and SEZ sale. According to the petitioncr. so far as the transit sale, SEZ sale are concemed, the Revisional Authority alter due consideration of the representation have decided the issue in favour of the assesses and has reduced thc additional tax liability lrom Rs. 5,40, 42,969 I - to Rs'2, I 3,96,646i-

5. 'l'he contention of the petitioner is that as regards the issue of highseasales,theRevisioanlAuthorityhasntrtdealtwiththesarnc and havc thus violated the earlier ordcr ol this ('ourt in thc earlicr writ petition and had prayed for setting asidc of tlie inipugned ordcr and the matter be remanded back to the authority concerned for a ftesh consideration on the aspect of high sca sales'

6. The leamed Special Govemment Pleader, on the othcr hand' opposing the contentions of the petitioner submits that at thc outset the writ petition cannot be maintainable as the order is one which is appeatable, secondly the ground that the petitioner has raised again is not cor.rec, as the point of high sea sales also has been duly considered, but has not gone in favour of the asessec Thtrs' it cannot be said that the authority has not considered the aspect' as \ 4 thc impugned order itself would go to reflect the cr .rsidcration ol' thc objection AS regards the high sea sales t e concerned l'hcrelbre. lhe lelrned Special (lovemment Pleu,l,,r iviLs of the contention that thcre was no violation of any princi 'rles of natural -iustice. as has becn contended by the learned c< unscI fbr the petrtroner

7. I Iavins dul) considered the submissions prrt brlh on cither side and on pertrsal of the record, particularll, on tlr , aspect of thc qucstion ot' irigh sea sales are concerned, the ir,pugned order specificatll, rcflects ol the authority having taken L 1 rhat issuc bur atter relusinr.l to intcrf-ere with the same on the gror r d that the said rrspect alreacll, stood concludcd earlier and, therefi r,l, was bcyond thc pulvicri of thc revisional authorify. Moreov,:, wlrat. is also apparcntly cr iclcut ll'orn the bare perusal of the pn t :edings is rhat pursuant to the earlier order this Fligh court in \4 . ).No.16467 of .or5 ciccided on 23.06.2025, the respondent autl Lt,ritics did take up the matte r of the petitioner and have duly scrut i rizetl the same and the petitioners have in fact been provided r ith substantial relief of reducing the tax liability that was ear i:r. assessed ol' Rs.5,40.42,969/- and have reduced it to B.:.2,11,96,6461_. I I I I I I I I I : i I I I t I t 5 Thus, it cannot be said that the respondenl authorities have decided the matter with a closed mind or with a pre-determined approach. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is not one which needs to be taken up invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather SINCC there is already a statutory remedy of appeal available, would be open for the petitioner to, if he so wants, assail the impugned order by way of statutory appcal. The view of this Court stands fortit-red from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDTNG COMPANY LMTTED', whereby the Hon'bte Supreme Courl referring to a series of judgments in paragrapl.r 5, 6 and 7 has held as under: "5. While entertaining the writ petition under Article 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 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/valld ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the '2922\CC Online SC 1425 \ I 6 Constitution of lndia challenging the Asse;r meni Order denying the lnput rebate against which a statl tory remedy of appeal was available.

6. At thrs stage, a recent decision of this Cotr i tn the case of The Slale of Maharashtra v. Greals i/p (lndia) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2022, :lecided on 20.09.2022) is required to be referred to. Afk r taking into consideration the earlier decision of this CoLrr in the case of United Bank of lndia v. Satyawati Tondo-t reported in (2010) 8 SCC 1 10, it is observed and held hat in a tax matter when a statutory remedy of appeal is i vailable, the High Court ought not to have entertained th€ writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd z against the Assessment Order by-passing the statutol remedy of appeal. While holding so, this Court cr,r sidered the observations made by this Court in paragrertr 1s 49 to 53 in Satyawati Iondon (supra), which read as e r ,ler: "49. The views expressed tn Titaghur Pa;t .r Mills Co. Lld v. Sfale of Orissa (1 983) 2 SCC 433 v ,ere echoed in CCE v Dunlop tndia Lld (1985) I SC(; 260. in the following words: (SCC p. 264, para 3) "3. .. . Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit r . circumvent statutory procedures. lt is only where statu I ry remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands o,f rxtraordinary situations, as for instance where the very ,/ires of the statute is in question or where private or pub i r wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention 01 public injury and the vindication of public justice require it lrat recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constrtutior. 3ut then the Court must have good and sufficient reason t:.bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Su "ely matters involving the revenue where statutory re medies are 7 available are not such matters. We can also take judicial nolice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged."

50. ln Punjab National Bankv. OC. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under ArTicle 227 of the Constitution was mainlainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) "5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 (for short'the Act'). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate 6- The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Sectron 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the \,\ \: \ i, J 8 jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 ar.l 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is,1 alternative remedy available. JUdicial prudence demar rjs that the Cou( refrains from exercising its jurisdiction rrrrder the said constrtutional provisions. This was a case w -'r rre the High Court should not have entertained the petitiorr .rnder Article 227 of lhe Constitution and should have lirected the respondent to take recourse to the appee I mechanism provided by the Act."

51. ln CCIv. lndian Explosives Ltd [(2008) :l SCC 688] the Court reversed an order passed by the fi ,ision Bench of the Orissa High Court quashing the show-;ause notice issued to the respondent under the Orissa [),rles Tax Act by observing that the High Court had comp r tely ignored the parameters laid down by this Court in a li rrge number of cases relating to exhaustion of alternative r€ medy €ithe

52. lo Ctty and lndustrial Development Cx |pn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala t(2009) 1 SCC 1€ highlighted the parameters which are require<i :o be kept in vrew by the High Court while exercising .iurir;( tction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Paras 29 a I I 30 of that ludgment which contain the views of this (:r urt read as under: (SCC pp. 175-76) Court ''29. ln our opinion, the High Court while l,iercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 2,16 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the rele\/i nt facts and circumstances into consideration and decide fr r itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the I tate and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at a I s made out requiring its interference on the basis of the rr lterial made available on record. There is nothing like i; tuing an ex ,i i i I I I Ii i r i I I i : : i t t I 9 parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of rmpugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadrngs of the State but would be free to satisfy rtself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutron

30. The Court while exercising rts jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudicatron of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfictorily resolved; (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 the petition reveals all material facts, the petitioner has any allernative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; person invoking the jurisdiction is gui{ty of unexplained delay and laches; ex facie barred by any laws of limitation, grant of relef is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideratton of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a pubhc law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Fu(her, empty and self- defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any 10 .j relief to a person in a public law remedy to wi- ch he ts not otherwise entitled to in law." 53 ln Ra/ Kumar Shivhare v. D c ltorate of Enforcentert L(2O1O\ 4 SCC 7721 the Courl vas dealing wrth the rssue whether the alternative stat r ory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Mana:yement Act, 1999 can be bypassed and lurisdiction under r rticle 226 of the Constrtution could be invoked After e > ;rmining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed (SCC o 781, paras 31-32) ' 37 When a statutory forum is created by av, or redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute z writ petition should not be entertained ignoring tl^,1 statutory drspensatron. ln this case the High Court : a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That ; rould not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant fo- nvoking the forum of ludicial review of the High CoL r under writ junsdiction The High Court, with great resp -. t, feil into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect ( f the matter. It has however dtsmissed the writ petition on t te ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 32 No reason could be assigned by th€ appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jrrrisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA do: , not provide an efficacious remedy. ln fact there could r rrdly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appe | :te forum.,,

7. ln view of the above, the impugned JUdgrr€ r1t and order passed by the High Courl entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd z against the Assessment Order denying the benefit of lrrl)ut rebate is unsuslainable and the same deserves to be ( uashed and 11, set aside and lhe orlginal writ petitioner is to be relegated to prefer an appeal against the Assessment Order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Divisional Deputy Commrssioner. Commercial Tax, Jabalpur, which may be avarlable under Sectron 46(1 ) of the MP VAT Act, 2002" 'Ihe said view has also been followed by this l-Iigh Court in a very reccnt decision in the case of M/s A.S.MET CORP PRMTE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) AND OTHERS:, whercin in paragraplis 14 and l5 it has been held as

14. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the adjudicating officer has, without granting adequate opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and wrthout supplying the relevant rehed upon documents, passed the impugned order-in-original. Needless to say that the writ proceedings are entertainable on grounds of error of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural lustice or if there is a violation of fundamental rights. ln such financial matters, it is the consistent view of the Apex Court, as also held in Civil Appeal No.7170 ot 2022, daled 14.10.2022 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Commercial Engineers and Body Buildrng Company Limited), relied upon by the learned Speclal Government Pleader for State Tax that when the taxing statute provides for an alternative remedy for resolution of dispute, the writ court would be \ t ' W.P.No.29376 OF 2025 decided on 06.10.2025. ) ) 1-2 loath to enter into such disputed questions c'fact which can adequately be raised before the appellatr authority. ln such circumstances. we are not inclined to i rterfere with the matter. 15 The petrtioner is at liberty to approacl.t t re a1;pellate authority with statutory pre-deposit as per tft€ Section 107(1) read wrth sub-section (4) of th3 TGST Act rrovisrons of

8. In vierv of the aforesaid, we are not inclincd t ) entcrtain the writ pctition at this juncture, reserving the right ol'rl e pelitioner to preler an appeal, il- he so wants

9. fhc rvrit petition is, accordingly, disnrisscrl. l'here shall be no ordcr as to costs Consequently, miscellancous petitions pendir.r. if any, shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY/ I SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY AS S ISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI A.V.A.S|VA KART|KEYA, Advocate [O{, jC] Iyg 9C. to SRt SWAROOP OOR|LLA, Special G L,ernment pteader for State Tax, High Courr for the Stat,e of fJrngiii";'U",f ,-UrO- ibUil Two CD Copies ,/ l$9'-r- To 1 2 MP LS I I I I I I I I I I I I i i I i I i i I i I I i I I i I I I ,! I ! I I I I I I i I I i I I I HIGH COURT DATI:1D:0711112025 ORDER WP.Nc 33664 ot 2025 o t 2B ir0u 20fr * o 1is .l DISMISSING THE V\]RIT PETITION WII HOUT COSTS (, l"\&6- &D