THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDING COMPANY LIMITED

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 14-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
v.
M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDING
COMPANY LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No.7170 of 2022)
OCTOBER 14, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.226 – Writ jurisdiction in tax matters
– Writ petition filed challenging order of asssessing officer denying
input rebate under s.14 of MP VAT Act, 2002 – Entertainability of –
Held: High Court ought not to entertain the writ petition under
Art.226 challenging the assessment order denying the Input rebate
against which a statutory appeal would be available under s.46(1)
of the MP VAT Act, 2002 – Alternative efficacious remedy.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: While entertaining the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order
denying the Input 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/valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order
denying the Input rebate against which a statutory remedy of
appeal was available. The original writ petitioner is to be relegated
to prefer an appeal against the Assessment Order passed by the
Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur,
which may be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act,
2002. [Paras 5, 7][987-E-F; 991-F]
The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Greatship
(India) Limited [2022] 13 SCALE 770; United Bank
of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8 SCC
110 : [2010] 9 SCR 1 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 1
relied on
Para 6
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 985
985
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7170
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 05.08.2015 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 7628
of 2015.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Abhinav Shrivastava,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Amar Dave, Akshay Sapre, Abhijeet Swaroop, Vinam Gupta,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 7628/2015, by which the
Division Bench of the High Court has entertained the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has quashed and set aside
the Assessment Order passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, Jabalpur, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred
the present appeal.
2. By an Assessment Order dated 28.02.2015, the Assessing
Officer denied the Input rebate under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh
Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MP VAT
Act, 2002’) to the respondent. Without preferring an appeal against the
Assessment Order denying the Input rebate under Section 46(1) of the
MP VAT Act, 2002, the respondent preferred the writ petition before the
High Court. Despite the specific objection raised on behalf of the State
not to entertain the writ petition against the Assessment Order denying
the Input rebate in view of the availability of the statutory remedy of
appeal under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002, the High Court
entertained the writ petition by observing that there are no disputed
questions of facts involved in the matter 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. That thereafter by the impugned judgment and
order, the High Court has set aside the Assessment Order denying the
Input rebate and consequently has allowed the Input rebate in favour of
the respondent – assessee – original writ petitioner. The impugned
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of
present appeal.
3. Number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective parties on merits including the
entertainability of the writ petition by the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying
the Input rebate. However, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we
propose to dismiss the writ petition preferr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.