State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: WRIT JURISDICTION vs. STATUTORY REMEDY

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Do not miss this case, if you ever thought of filing Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution 1.Assessing Officer passed the assessment order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT Act and CST Act; Assessee preferred Writ before Hon. Bombay High Court which quashed the Assessment Order and the Demand Notice; Against which Revenue filed an appeal before Hon. Apex Court and contended that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as Assessee has not availed statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal before the…
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

The State of Maharashtra and Others …Appellants

2. That the respondent – original writ petitioner was subjected to

notice of assessment dated 01.02.2018 calling upon the assessee to

2.1 According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner submitted the

therefore no hearing took place. According to the writ petitioner, multiple

Appellant / assessee submissions

4. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants has vehemently submitted that against the assessment order

4.1 It is next submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

of the respondent has submitted that considering the material on record,

Revenue / respondent submissions

of the respondent has submitted that considering the material on record,

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

Operative decision and relief

6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”

53. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2010) 4 SCC 772] the Court was dealing with the issue whether the alternative statutory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can be bypassed and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked. After examining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed: (SCC p. 781, paras 31-32) “31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 32. No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact…

passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ

otherwise have been set aside by the present order. The present appeal

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Do not miss this case, if you ever thought of filing Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution 1.Assessing Officer passed the assessment order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT Act and CST Act; Assessee preferred Writ before Hon. Bombay High Court which quashed the Assessment Order and the Demand Notice; Against which Revenue filed an appeal before Hon. Apex Court and contended that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as Assessee has not availed statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal before the…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with do not miss this case, if you ever thought of filing writ under article 226 of the constitution 1.assessing officer passed the assessment order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the mvat act and cst act; assessee preferred writ before hon. bombay high court which quashed the assessment order and the demand notice; against which revenue filed an appeal before hon. apex court and contended that the high court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under article 226 of the constitution as assessee has not availed statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal before the… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• WRIT JURISDICTION vs. STATUTORY REMEDY - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Rajesh Somandas Sachdev v. ITO & Ors. - Bombay High Court
• Vasavi Developers v. DCIT - ITAT Hyderabad
• Deepak Maratha v. UOI - Rajasthan High Court

Different outcome / possible distinction

• Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao v. ADIT - Operative order controls
• Amish Harenkumar Parikh v. ACIT - Operative order controls

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all judgments

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY