1998 JTR(SC) 330
1999 AIR(SC) 552 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 3874 ; 1998 2 CTC 34 ; 1998 4 JT 483 ; 1998 4 SCC 90 ; 1999 114 STC 178 ; 1998 KHC 3612 ; 1998 9 Supreme 149
1998(9) Supreme 149
Supreme Court of India
(From Orissa High Court)
S.C. Agrawal, D.P. Wadhwa and A.P. Misra, JJ.
Pardeep Port Trust -Appellant
versus
Sales Tax Officer & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4482 of 1998)
With
C.A. Nos. 1490 to 1493 of 1998
(Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 4571, 4595, 4596 and 4625 of 1998)
Decided on 6-3-1998
Important Point
Where the Sales tax assessment order was challenged on the ground that the impost was not within legislative power of State raising question touching upon interpretation of Article 366 (29-A)(d) dismissal of writ petition on the ground that alternative remedy available under Sales Tax Act not availed was unjustified.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
ORISSA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT : .
(A) The impugned orders of assessment under the Orissa General Sales Tax Act were challenged in the High Court through writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, on the ground that the transactions fell outside the legislative competence of the State to levy sales tax, specifically concerning the interpretation of transfer of the right to use any goods in clause (29-A) of Article 366. The High Court declined to adjudicate the merits, holding that an alternative remedy of appeal under the Sales Tax Act was available, and therefore the writ petitions were not entertained. This Court examines whether the availability of a statutory appeal necessarily ousts the jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 226 when substantial questions of constitutional interpretation arise, and concludes that the High Court ought to have entertained the petition and decided the questions raised.
(B) The core legal principles include the scope of judicial review under Article 226, the interplay between statutory remedies and constitutional jurisdiction, the justiciability of issues involving constitutional interpretation, and the limitations on High Court discretion to refuse writ jurisdiction where substantial questions of law are involved.
Facts of the case:
The appellant Port Trust filed writ petitions in the Orissa High Court challenging orders of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack, for Assessment Years 1990-91 to 1994-95. The appellant contended that the assessments were invalid as they pertained to matters outside the legislative power of the State to impose sales tax, specifically invoking the interpretation of transfer of the right to use any goods under clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that an appeal against the assessment orders was available under the Sales Tax Act, and therefore the writ petitions were not maintainable.
Findings of Court:
The Orissa High Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Sales Tax Act precluded the exercise of writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. This Court found that the High Court erred in not entertaining the writ petitions and in not addressing the substantial questions of law concerning the constitutional interpretation of the taxable transaction.
Issues:
Whether the availability of a statutory appeal under the Sales Tax Act necessarily bars the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the assessment when substantial questions of constitutional interpretation are involved.
Ratio Decidendi:
The mere availability of an appeal under the Sales Tax Act does not automatically strip the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs. When questions involving constitutional interpretation, such as the scope of transfer of the right to use any goods for sales tax purposes, are raised, the High Court must examine the merits and cannot refuse to entertain the writ petitions.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court is set aside, and the writ petitions are remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits, with no order as to costs.
(A) The impugned orders of assessment under the Orissa General Sales Tax Act were challenged in the High Court through writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, on the ground that the transactions fell outside the legislative competence of the State to levy sales tax, specifically concerning the interpretation of transfer of the right to use any goods in clause (29-A) of Article 366. The High Court declined to adjudicate the merits, holding that an alternative remedy of appeal under the Sales Tax Act was available, and therefore the writ petitions were not entertained. This Court examines whether the availability of a statutory appeal necessarily ousts the jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 226 when substantial questions of constitutional interpretation arise, and concludes that the High Court ought to have entertained the petition and decided the questions raised.
(B) The core legal principles include the scope of judicial review under Article 226, the interplay between statutory remedies and constitutional jurisdiction, the justiciability of issues involving constitutional interpretation, and the limitations on High Court discretion to refuse writ jurisdiction where substantial questions of law are involved.
Facts of the case:
The appellant Port Trust filed writ petitions in the Orissa High Court challenging orders of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack, for Assessment Years 1990-91 to 1994-95. The appellant contended that the assessments were invalid as they pertained to matters outside the legislative power of the State to impose sales tax, specifically invoking the interpretation of transfer of the right to use any goods under clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that an appeal against the assessment orders was available under the Sales Tax Act, and therefore the writ petitions were not maintainable.
Findings of Court:
The Orissa High Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Sales Tax Act precluded the exercise of writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. This Court found that the High Court erred in not entertaining the writ petitions and in not addressing the substantial questions of law concerning the constitutional interpretation of the taxable transaction.
Issues:
Whether the availability of a statutory appeal under the Sales Tax Act necessarily bars the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the assessment when substantial questions of constitutional interpretation are involved.
Ratio Decidendi:
The mere availability of an appeal under the Sales Tax Act does not automatically strip the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs. When questions involving constitutional interpretation, such as the scope of transfer of the right to use any goods for sales tax purposes, are raised, the High Court must examine the merits and cannot refuse to entertain the writ petitions.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court is set aside, and the writ petitions are remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits, with no order as to costs.
Order
Special leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 19.2.1998 in writ petitions filed by the appellant Port Trust against the orders of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack, in respect of Assessment Years 1990-91 to 1994-95. In the said writ petitions the case of the appellant was that the assessment for sales tax has been made in respect of matters which do not fall within the legislative power of the State to impose sales tax. The writ petitioners raise questions involving interpretation of the words “transfer of the right to use any goods” in sub-clause (d) of clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant on the view that, the alternative remedy of an appeal against order of assessment is available under the sales tax and since the said remedy is available the writ petitions could not be entertained. Having regard to the question that was involved in the writ petitions relating to interpretation of sub-clause (d) of clause 29A of Article 366 of the Constitution and the taxability of the transactions in respect of which sales tax has been assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, we are of the view that the High Court should have entertained the writ petitions and should have considered the said question instead of requiring the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal under the Sales Tax Act. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the appellant are remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits. No order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed
**********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Pardeep Port Trust v. Sales Tax Officer, 1998(9) Supreme 149
00024