Case Law Details
Krishna Theeram Ayur Holy Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd Vs State Tax Officer-II (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Krishna Theeram Ayur Holy Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. challenging the assessment order issued under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. The court ruled that since the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy through an appeal, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution was not justified. The case stemmed from an assessment order for the financial year 2016-17, which was originally set aside by the Appellate Authority, directing a fresh assessment. The petitioner failed to produce records as required, leading to a new assessment order, which was then challenged in the writ petition.
The petitioner contended that the fresh assessment order exceeded the scope of the original proceedings and was time-barred. It was also argued that the company had availed benefits under an Amnesty Scheme, paying the assessed tax, and therefore, the assessing authority was not entitled to pass the new order. However, the government pleader countered that the previous assessment order had been completely set aside, granting the assessing officer discretion either to restore it or conduct a fresh assessment. The court observed that the petitioner’s reliance on the Amnesty Scheme was unilateral and did not prevent the department from reassessing the liability.
The High Court, after examining the records, found that the Amnesty Scheme application and tax payment made by the petitioner did not bind the department or prohibit further assessment. The court emphasized that the limitation issue raised by the petitioner could be appropriately addressed through the statutory appellate process. Since the Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction to examine such issues, the writ petition was not a suitable remedy.
Relying on precedents where courts have upheld the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory remedy is available, the Kerala High Court ruled against the petitioner. The court reaffirmed the settled legal position that unless exceptional circumstances exist, tax matters should first be addressed through the prescribed appeal mechanisms before approaching the High Court. Unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice, writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative remedy exists.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue an appeal before the appropriate authority. It clarified that if such an appeal was filed, it should be considered without being influenced by the observations in the judgment. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P6 order of assessment issued by the first respondent.
2. Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. For the year 2016-17, initially, an assessment was completed on 22.12.2020. The said order was challenged in appeal before the 2nd respondent, and by Exhibit-P2 order, the assessment was set aside and a fresh consideration was directed after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the records. The Appellate Authority further observed in its order that if the appellant does not avail the opportunity to produce records, the assessing authority is at liberty to restore the impugned order. Despite the aforesaid direction, petitioner did not avail the opportunity to produce records. Since the impugned order was set aside, the assessing officer passed a fresh assessment order, which is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Sri. P. S. Soman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order of assessment has entered into areas that were not part of the original assessment order, and hence, the period of limitation will apply. According to the learned counsel, in the meantime, petitioner had availed the benefit of Amnesty Scheme as per Exhibit-P3 on 28.09.2024, and even paid the amount as evident from the challan of the same date, and thereafter the assessing authority was not entitled to issue the impugned order.
4. Smt. Jasmin M. M., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that the earlier assessment order was completely set aside as per Exhibit-P2 and a fresh consideration was directed. Though the assessing officer was given the liberty to restore the earlier assessment order, it was an option given to the assessing authority. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even as regards the question of limitation, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that it is a matter which could be considered by the Appellate Authority.
5. On a perusal of Exhibit-P2, this Court notices that the assessment order was completely set aside for a fresh consideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader an option was given to the assessing authority to restore the impugned order. However, the said authority did not opt for that choice and instead issued a fresh order. The order of the Appellate Authority was on 09.01.2024, and until the present impugned order was issued, there was no amount quantified to avail the Amnesty Scheme. Exhibit-P3 application dated 28.09.2024 and the e-challan paid by the petitioner are all unilateral actions, which cannot bind the assessing authority or the Department from issuing Exhibit-P6 order of assessment. Therefore, the contentions based on the Amnesty Scheme allegedly availed by the petitioner are not of any assistance to the petitioner.
6. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, since the matter requires to be appreciated on the basis of the documents available and since the petitioner has the remedy of appeal, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal against Exhibit-P6. If any such appeal is filed, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority untrammelled by any observations made in this judgment.
Author Bio
