M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 01-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 871
871
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD.
v.
THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING
AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5393 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 01, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 : ss. 33 and 34 – Revision
– As regards, tax liability on mosquito repellant manufactured by
the appellant, the Revisional Authority suo moto called for the
assessment records of appellant as found that the Assessing Authority
erred in levying tax on mosquito repellant @ 4% instead of 10 % –
It issued show cause notices and passed final revisional order
enhancing the liability of the appellant to tax @10% instead of 4%
– Writ petition thereagainst – High Court relegated the appellant to
the alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 33, which it had not pursued –
Justification of – Held: Mere availability of an alternative remedy
of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the High Court u/Art. 226 has not pursued, would not oust the
jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition “not
maintainable” – Availability of an alternative remedy does not
operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ petition
– Rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy
provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion
rather than a rule of law – Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a
High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the
alternative remedy without examining whether an exceptional case
has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper –
Moreover, a jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition
questioning the very competence of the Revisional Authority to
exercise suo motu power, was a pure question of law – Thus, the
High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition – Constitution of
India - Art.226.
s.34 – Revisional jurisdiction – Orders of the Revisional
Authority seeking to revise the orders of the Assessing Authority
pertaining to the Assessment Years – Held : Sine qua non for exercise
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
of power u/s. 34 is the satisfaction of the Revisional Authority that
an order has been made by a taxing authority in any proceeding
prejudicial to the interests of the State, the legality or propriety of
which appears to him to be prima facie vulnerable.
Constitution of India : Art.226 – Writ – “entertainability” and
“maintainability” – Difference between – Discussed.
Art. 226 – Writ – Entertainability of, when effective and
efficacious alternative remedy available – Discussed.”
Judicial discipline: Principle of judicial discipline – Adherence
to the decision of higher authorities – Unless the discipline of
adhering to decisions made by the higher authorities is maintained,
there would be utter chaos in administration of tax laws apart from
undue harassment to assesse – On facts, nothing on record to justify
either illegality or procedural/moral impropriety in the proceedings
before the Assessing Authority or the orders passed by him, as such
– To brand the order of the Assessing Authority as illegal, the same
appears to be not only unjustified but also demonstrates thorough
lack of understanding of the principle regulating exercise of suo
motu revisional power by a quasi-judicial authority apart from being
in breach of the principle of judicial discipline, while confronted
with orders passed by a superior tribunal/Court – It is not the
Assessing Authority’s orders but those passed by the Revisional
Authority, which suffer from a patent illegality. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in
mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether
to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed
restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has
evolved through judicial precedents is that the high courts should
normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and
efficacious alternative remedy is available. It must be
remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of
appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust
the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not
maintainable”. Availability of an alternative remedy does not
operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ petition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
873
and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.