Case Law Details
M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents a litigant from seeking a remedy in a new court or jurisdiction until all claims or remedies have been exhausted (pursued as fully as possible) in the original one. In this case Rajasthan High Court explains The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies based on various judgments delivered by Other High Courts and Hon;ble Supreme Court.
Held: Assessee-company was registered as dealers with the respondents under Act of 2003. It was engaged in the business of sale of mobile phones, tablets, laptops etc. Bone of contention between the parties was that whether the charger/adapter, battery, earphone, data cable, which were sold along with mobile phone or laptop, in a composite box, against a single sale price, were liable to be taxed along with the main packet or separately and if separately, at what rate and whether they could be sold separately also. The basis on which Revenue sought to reopen the assessment already made was the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., in which it was held that the mobile phone charger was an accessory and was liable to be taxed separately under the residuary entry of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Assessee submitted that the re-assessment orders passed by AO were without any jurisdiction and therefore the writ petitions could be directly maintained before this court. Availability of alternate remedy of appeal could never be a bar for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in exceptional cases before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Single Judge held that assessee would have an efficacious alternate remedy of successive appeals provided in the Act of 2003 itself. Considering however that the period for filing the appeal had expired, Single Judge gave liberty to assessee to file appeal within 60 days from the date the judgment was pronounced.It was held the present case did not completely lack the jurisdiction in passing the reassessment order. It went on to hold that the case of assessee could not also fall in any category of exceptions consisting of breach of a fundamental right. Neither it was a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice was alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. Thus, the view of Single Judge was upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
All these appeals have been preferred against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 10.3.2017, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. The appellants in the writ petitions challenged the notices issued to them under section 26, 55 and 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003 ( for short the Act of 2003″) as also the reassessment orders the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying gment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court and in some of the cases, the assessment orders have been passed, therefore, after considering such issues, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the revenue that the entire due amount of tax and interest has been paid by the appellants, thus the condition of the prior payment of due amount to maintain the appeal stands satisfied and that despite there being no interim order, the demand for recovery of penalty has not been pressed against the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions, therefore, it was held that the appellants would have efficacious alternate remedy of successive appeals provided in the Act of 2003 itself. Considering however that the period for filing the appeal has expired, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the appellants to file appeal within 60 days from the date the judgement is pronounced. Learned Single Judge in taking that view mainly relied on the judgement of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.-(2017) 102 VST 78 (HP), in which case also the re-assessment orders passed on the basis of judgement of the Supreme Court in Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., supra was directly challenged before the High Court in writ petitions, which were dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
