Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Vijay Tank And Vessels Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Commercial Tax M.P. ... on 10 May, 2012
W.P.No. 18252/2011
(M/s. Vijay Tank & Vessels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ..Vs. .. Commissioner
of Commercial Tax, M.G.Road, Indore & others)
10-5-2012
Shri R.N.Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri
Sumit Nema, for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents No. 1 to 3.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15-6-2011, Annexure P-20 to Annexure P-23 passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Tax, Sagar assessing the petitioner to tax under the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and entry tax for the period 2008-09 and 2009-10 on the ground that the said orders are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & others Vs. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. & others, reported in (2008) 13 STJ 466 (SC).
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a sub contractor, has been assessed to tax in spite of the fact that he has produced a certificate in Form 3-A prescribed by the M.P. VAT Rules, 2006 and was, therefore, not liable to be assessed to tax in view of the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. The petitioner has raised several other issues relating to the validity and correctness of the order passed by the assessing officer.
The respondents have filed a return and raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainment of the present petition in view of the availability of a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the order of assessment.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not disputed, however, this Court can entertain the petition in cases of lack of jurisdiction in the authority passing the order as in the present case.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection.
Having perused the record as well as the impugned order we are of the considered opinion that the present case is not one of lack of jurisdiction but is a case where the petitioners allege improper and illegal exercise of jurisdiction and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner must be relegated to availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order as the appellate authority is fully empowered and competent to look into the issues raised by the petitioner, scrutinize the facts and pass an order in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner with a liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appellate authority, if so advised, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
(Ajit Singh) (R.S.Jha)
Judge Judge
mct