M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.

M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.

The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition for non-pursuit of the alternative remedy because the petitioner raised a pure jurisdictional question under Article 226 challenging the Revisional Authority's competence to exercise suo motu power under section 34. Because the Tribunal had earlier finally settled the classification issue, the first proviso to section 34 barred the Revisional Authority from exercising suo motu revision; consequently the revisional orders dated 2 March 2009 were invalid and were set aside.

Parties
Appellant: M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD.; Respondent(s): THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.5393 of 2010 (special Leave) / Judgment by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revision Under VAT Act Section 34, Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Alternative Remedy Doctrine (entertainability Vs Maintainability), Judicial Discipline, Suo Motu Revision
Taxation Constitutional Law Administrative Law Revision Under VAT Act Section 34 Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Alternative Remedy Doctrine (entertainability Vs Maintainability) Judicial Discipline Suo Motu Revision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD.

Appellant

THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.5393 of 2010 (special Leave) / Judgment by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal under section 33 of the VAT Act was available and not pursued
  2. 2 Whether the Revisional Authority had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to exercise suo motu revision in respect of assessment orders where the issue had been finally settled by the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition for non-pursuit of the alternative remedy because the petitioner raised a pure jurisdictional question under Article 226 challenging the Revisional Authority's competence to exercise suo motu power under section 34. Because the Tribunal had earlier finally settled the classification issue, the first proviso to section 34 barred the Revisional Authority from exercising suo motu revision; consequently the revisional orders dated 2 March 2009 were invalid and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned final revisional orders dated 2 March 2009 for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 invalidated
  • Order of the High Court dated 12 October 2009 set aside