THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS versus GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 20-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
v.
GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Alternate Remedy – Availability of – Constitution of India –
Art.226 – Writ petition under, entertainability of – Maharashtra
Value Added Tax Act, 2002 – s.23 – Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 –
Assessment order passed by the assessing authority determining the
tax liability along with interest and penalty under the aforesaid Acts
– Respondent-assessee filed writ petition challenging the assessment
order inter alia  on the ground of limitation – High Court set aside
the assessment order and the demand notice – On appeal, held:
The statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment
order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed
by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the
Tribunal – Thus, when there is an alternate/statutory remedy
available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from
exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provision – High Court
seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 226 against
the assessment order, bypassing the statutory remedies – It ought to
have relegated the respondent to avail the statutory remedy of appeal
and thereafter to avail other remedies provided under the statute –
No valid reasons shown by respondent to by-pass the statutory
remedy of appeal – Further, on facts there are serious disputes as
to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.20 or 14.07.20
(as alleged by the assessee) – Impugned judgment set aside – Writ
petition filed before High Court is dismissed – Respondent relegated
to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and other remedies available
under the MVAT Act and CST Act.
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others
(2010) 8 SCC 110 : [2010] 9 SCR 1 – relied on.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 840
840
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983)
2 SCC 433 : [1983] 2 SCR 743; Punjab National Bank
v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 : [2001] 1 Suppl.
SCR 466; Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2010) 4 SCC 772 : [2010] 4 SCR 608;
M/s Filterco & Another v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Madhya Pradesh and Another (1986) 2 SCC 103 :
[1986] 1 SCR 239; Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU
& Another v. Amara Raja Batteries Limited (2009) 8
SCC 209 : [2009] 11 SCR 953; Whirlpool Corporation
v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 :
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1983] 2 SCR 743
referred to                Para 4.2
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 466
referred to                Para 4.2
[2010] 4 SCR 608
referred to                Para 4.2
[2010] 9 SCR 1
relied on                   Para 4.2
[1986] 1 SCR 239
referred to                Para 5.1
[2009] 11 SCR 953
referred to                Para 5.1
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359
referred to                Para 5.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4956
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 92630 of 2020.
Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph,
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Rafique Dada, Sr. Adv., Ajay Bhargava, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava,
Sudipta Bhattacharjee, Omkar Sharma, Ariyadeep Roy, Ms. Trishala
Trivedi, M/s Khaitan & Co., Advs. for the Respondent.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS v. GREATSHIP
(INDIA) LIMITED
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 92630 of 2020, by which the High
Court has, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, set aside the assessment order passed by the assessing authority
and also the belated notice of demand, the State of Maharashtra and
others have preferred the present appeal.
2. That the respondent – original writ petitioner was subjected to
proceedings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘MVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CST Act’). The Assessing Officer issued
notice of assessment dated 01.02.2018 calling upon the assessee to
produce relevant documents and also to show cause as 

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