Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 698 (GAU)

SPEEDY CARRIERS OF INDIA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-07-15

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
Judgment A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. J. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. The decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern disposal of two connected writ petition being WP(C) Nos.2390/2006 and 2391/2006 because in these writ petitions, as stated by learned counsel appearing for the parties, common question of law is involved and therefore they can be disposed of by one order. Indeed, the other two matters are not listed today but on being mentioned that the other two matters also involve identical points which is subject matter of this writ petition, we asked the Registry to list the other two matters to avoid any conflicting orders in identical writ petitions. This is how all the three writ petitions are listed today for their analogous disposal. This is a writ petition filed by the writ petitioner – a registered dealer under the provisions of Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short called ‘The Act’) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed to question the legality and correctness of the order dated 28.03.2006 passed by Superintendent of Taxes, Zone-A, Guwahati, Respondent No.3, under Section 75(12)(b)(v) of the Act. By the impugned order, the assessing authority imposed a tax/penalty amounting to Rs.3,39,095.00 on the petitioner in relation to the goods which were being transported by the petitioner and were seized for the purpose of determination of payment of tax and the penalty in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that order dated 28.03.2006 impugned in this writ petition is appellable under Section 79 of the Act to the specified appellate authority. In a situation like the one where petitioner has an alternative, effective and statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act to question the legality and correctness of the order then we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition to examine its legality on merits in our writ jurisdiction. It is apart from the fact that the petitioner was not able to bring the case within the excepted category as laid down by the Supreme Court for entertaining the writ petition notwithstanding availability of statutory remedy to challenge such impugned order. We, too, on our part were not able to notice any such ground which may persuade us to entertain the writ petition. We, too, on our part were not able to notice any such ground which may persuade us to entertain the writ petition. It is for this reason, though this writ petition is pending since long, yet having regard to the nature of controversy we decline to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned order and permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition and file a regular statutory appeal as provided under Section 79 of the Act to the specified appellate authority within a period of 60 days from today against the order dated 28.03.2006 passed by respondent No.3. In case if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within 60 days as permitted by this Court then the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The appeal shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of its presentation if filed. In the event of any adverse order being passed against any party, they will take recourse to all statutory remedies available to them under the Act against such order and it is only after exhausting all statutory remedies of filing appeal/revision, as the case may be, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to take recourse to the extraordinary remedy of writ petition, if occasion arises. It is with these observations and liberty, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition to enable them to file the appeal. So far as other two writ petitions are concerned, they too will have a right to challenge the order impugned in their respective writ petitions in the light of the liberty granted in this order. No cost.