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

- **Citation:** [2023] 3 S.C.R. 871
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.5393 of 2010
- **Bench:** S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-godrej-sara-lee-ltd-v-the-excise-and-taxation-officer-cum-assessing-37006
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 : ss. 33 and 34 - Revision
- As regards, tax liability on mosquito repellant manufactured by
the appellant, the Revisional Authority suo moto called for the
assessment records of appellant as found that the Assessing Authority
erred in levying tax on mosquito repellant @ 4% instead of 10 % -
It issued show cause notices and passed final revisional order
enhancing the liability of the appellant to tax @10% instead of 4%
- Writ petition thereagainst - High Court relegated the appellant to
the alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 33, which it had not pursued -
Justification of - Held: Mere availability of an alternative remedy
of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the High Court u/Art. 226 has not pursued, would not oust the
jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not
maintainable" - Availability of an alternative remedy does not
operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition
- Rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy
provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion
rather than a rule of law - Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a
High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the
alternative remedy without examining whether an exceptional case
has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper -
Moreover, a jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition
questioning the very competence of the Revisional Authority to
exercise suo motu power, was a pure question of law - Thus, the
High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition - Constitution of
India - Art.226.
s.34 - Revisional jurisdiction - Orders of the Revisional
Authority seeking to revise the orders of the Assessing Authority
pertaining to the Assessment Years - Held : Sine qua non for exercise
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
of power u/s. 34 is the satisfaction of the Revisional Authority that
an order has been made by a taxing authority in any proceeding
prejudicial to the interests of the State, the legality or propriety of
which appears to him to be prima facie vulnerable.
Constitution of India : Art.226 - Writ - "entertainability" and
"maintainability" - Difference between - Discussed.
Art. 226 - Writ - Entertainability of, when effective and
efficacious alternative remedy available - Discussed."
Judicial discipline: Principle of judicial discipline - Adherence
to the decision of higher authorities - Unless the discipline of
adhering to decisions made by the higher authorities is maintained,
there would be utter chaos in administration of tax laws apart from
undue harassment to assesse - On facts, nothing on record to justify
either illegality or procedural/moral impropriety in the proceedings
before the Assessing Authority or the orders passed by him, as such
- To brand the order of the Assessing Authority as illegal, the same
appears to be not only unjustified but also demonstrates thorough
lack of understanding of the principle regulating exercise of suo
motu revisional power by a quasi-judicial authority apart from being
in breach of the principle of judicial discipline, while confronted
with orders passed by a superior tribunal/Court - It is not the
Assessing Authority's orders but those passed by the Revisional
Authority, which suffer from a patent illegality.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in
mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether
to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed
restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has
evolved through judicial precedents is that the high courts should
normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and
efficacious alternative remedy is available. It must be
remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of
appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the high court unde

## Text

_Characters 0–39,732 of 50,925. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39732 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
 [2023] 3 S.C.R. 871
871
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD.
v.
THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING
AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5393 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 01, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 : ss. 33 and 34 - Revision
- As regards, tax liability on mosquito repellant manufactured by
the appellant, the Revisional Authority suo moto called for the
assessment records of appellant as found that the Assessing Authority
erred in levying tax on mosquito repellant @ 4% instead of 10 % -
It issued show cause notices and passed final revisional order
enhancing the liability of the appellant to tax @10% instead of 4%
- Writ petition thereagainst - High Court relegated the appellant to
the alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 33, which it had not pursued -
Justification of - Held: Mere availability of an alternative remedy
of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the High Court u/Art. 226 has not pursued, would not oust the
jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not
maintainable" - Availability of an alternative remedy does not
operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition
- Rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy
provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion
rather than a rule of law - Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a
High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the
alternative remedy without examining whether an exceptional case
has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper -
Moreover, a jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition
questioning the very competence of the Revisional Authority to
exercise suo motu power, was a pure question of law - Thus, the
High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition - Constitution of
India - Art.226.
s.34 - Revisional jurisdiction - Orders of the Revisional
Authority seeking to revise the orders of the Assessing Authority
pertaining to the Assessment Years - Held : Sine qua non for exercise
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
of power u/s. 34 is the satisfaction of the Revisional Authority that
an order has been made by a taxing authority in any proceeding
prejudicial to the interests of the State, the legality or propriety of
which appears to him to be prima facie vulnerable.
Constitution of India : Art.226 - Writ - "entertainability" and
"maintainability" - Difference between - Discussed.
Art. 226 - Writ - Entertainability of, when effective and
efficacious alternative remedy available - Discussed."
Judicial discipline: Principle of judicial discipline - Adherence
to the decision of higher authorities - Unless the discipline of
adhering to decisions made by the higher authorities is maintained,
there would be utter chaos in administration of tax laws apart from
undue harassment to assesse - On facts, nothing on record to justify
either illegality or procedural/moral impropriety in the proceedings
before the Assessing Authority or the orders passed by him, as such
- To brand the order of the Assessing Authority as illegal, the same
appears to be not only unjustified but also demonstrates thorough
lack of understanding of the principle regulating exercise of suo
motu revisional power by a quasi-judicial authority apart from being
in breach of the principle of judicial discipline, while confronted
with orders passed by a superior tribunal/Court - It is not the
Assessing Authority's orders but those passed by the Revisional
Authority, which suffer from a patent illegality.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in
mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether
to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed
restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has
evolved through judicial precedents is that the high courts should
normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and
efficacious alternative remedy is available. It must be
remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of
appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust
the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition "not
maintainable". Availability of an alternative remedy does not
operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
873
and bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the
rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy
provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs
to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a
writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction
between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to
"maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such
objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be
rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On
the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within
the realm of discretion of the High Courts, writ remedy being
discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not
be entertained by a High Court for very many reasons or relief
could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound
legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public
interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court on
the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative
remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case
has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper.
[Para 4][878-H; 879-A-F]
1.2. The appellant had claimed before the High Court that
the suo motu revisional power could not have been exercised by
the Revisional Authority in view of the existing facts and
circumstances leading to the only conclusion that the assessment
orders were legally correct and that the final orders impugned in
the writ petition were passed upon assuming a jurisdiction which
the Revisional Authority did not possess. In fine, the orders
impugned were passed wholly without jurisdiction. Since a
jurisdictional issue was raised by the appellant in the writ petition
questioning the very competence of the Revisional Authority to
exercise suo motu power, being a pure question of law, the plea
raised in the writ petition did deserve a consideration on merits
and the appellant's writ petition ought not to have been thrown
out at the threshold. [Para 9][881-B-D]
1.3. Ordering a remand is an available option. However,
having regard to the lapse of time (almost a life term of fourteen
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
years) since the orders impugned in the writ petition were made,
it would not be in the best interests of justice to remit the matter
to the High Court. Since prior to reserving judgment on this
appeal, the parties were heard on the merits of the jurisdictional
issue that the appellant had raised before the High Court, it is
time to rule on the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority. [Para
13][882-F]
1.4. Suo motu power of revision could be exercised by the
Revisional Authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to
the legality or propriety of any order made in any proceeding
which is prejudicial to the interests of the State. The first proviso,
however, imposed a restriction on exercise of such suo motu power,
if an issue had been settled, inter alia, by an appellate authority.
Thus, the sine qua non for exercise of power under section 34 is
the satisfaction of the Revisional Authority that an order has been
made by a taxing authority in any proceeding prejudicial to the
interests of the State, the legality or propriety of which appears
to him to be prima facie vulnerable. Nevertheless, such power
cannot be exercised if the issue involved is pending before or
has been settled by an appellate authority. It cannot be disputed
that the tribunal is comprehended within the meaning of 'appellate
authority' as defined in section 2(b) of the VAT Act. [Para 27][888D-F]
1.5. While deciding the present appeal, the Court is
primarily concerned with the issue of assumption of jurisdiction
by the Revisional Authority on the face of the unchallenged order
of the tribunal dated 21st November, 2001, and not with the merits
of the decision either given by the tribunal or by the Revisional
Authority. What stares at the face of the respondents is that the
said decision of the tribunal, quoted in the order of the Assessing
Authority, has attained finality. Once the issue stands finally
concluded, the decision binds the State, a fortiori, the Revisional
Authority. The decision of the tribunal may not be acceptable to
the Revisional Authority, but that cannot furnish any ground to
such authority to perceive that it is either not bound by the same
or that it need not be followed. The first proviso, in such a case,
gets activated and would operate as a bar to the exercise of
powers by the Revisional Authority. [Para 33][889-F-H; 890-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
875
1.6. The Revisional Authority might have been justified in
exercising suo motu power to revise the order of the Assessing
Authority had the decision of the Tribunal been set aside or its
operation stayed by a competent Court. So long it is not disputed
that the tribunal's decision, having regard to the framework of
classification of products/tax liability then existing, continues to
remain operative and such framework too continues to remain
operative when the impugned revisional orders were made, the
Revisional Authority was left with no other choice but to follow
the decision of the tribunal without any reservation. Unless the
discipline of adhering to decisions made by the higher authorities
is maintained, there would be utter chaos in administration of tax
laws apart from undue harassment to assesses. [Para 34][890-BD]
1.7 The submission that suo motu power of revision, on
the terms of section 34, could have been exercised only if the
orders sought to be revised suffered from any illegality or
impropriety, is accepted. [Para 36][890-F-G]
1.8 A decision may be questioned as suffering from an
illegality if its maker fails to understand the law that regulates
his decision making power correctly or if he fails to give effect to
any law that holds the field and binds the parties. On the other
hand, having regard to the purpose section 34 seeks to serve, to
take exception to a decision on the ground of lack of propriety of
any proceedings or order passed in such proceedings, it
essentially ought to relate to a procedural impropriety. It is
incumbent for the accuser to show that the decision maker has
failed to observe the standard procedures applicable in case of
exercise of his power. Additionally, to impeach an order on the
ground of moral impropriety, it has to be shown that the weight of
facts together with the applicable law overwhelmingly points to
one course of action but the decision has surprisingly gone the
other way, giving reason to suspect misbehaviour or misconduct
in the sphere of activity of the decision maker warranting a
revision. [Para 37][890-G-H; 891-A-B]
1.9. There is nothing on record to justify either illegality or
(procedural/moral) impropriety in the proceedings before the
Assessing Authority or the orders passed by him, as such. The
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
Assessing Authority was bound by the order of the tribunal and
elected to follow it having no other option. Such decision of the
tribunal was even binding on the Revisional Authority. In such
circumstances, to brand the orders of the Assessing Authority as
suffering from illegality and impropriety appears to be not only
unjustified but also demonstrates thorough lack of understanding
of the principle regulating exercise of suo motu revisional power
by a quasi-judicial authority apart from being in breach of the
principle of judicial discipline, while confronted with orders passed
by a superior tribunal/Court. It is not the Assessing Authority's
orders but those passed by the Revisional Authority, which suffer
from a patent illegality. [Para 38][891-C-E]
1.10 The impugned final revisional orders dated 2nd March,
2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 is
invalidated. [Para 39][891-E]
Titagarh Paper Mills vs. Orissa State Electricity Board
& Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 436 - held inapplicable.
Sonic Electrochem vs. S.T.O.(1998) 6 SCC 397 : [1998]
3 SCR 1102 - distinguished.
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Kamlakshi Finance
Corporation Ltd. 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 443 - relied on.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1983)
2 SCC 433 : [1983] 2 SCR 743; State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Mohd. Nooh [1958] SCR 595;
Whirlpool
Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
Others (1998) 8 SCC 1 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359;
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s. Commercial
Steel Limited 2021 SCC OnLine SC 884; State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (1977) 2
SCC 724 : [1977] 3 SCR 120; Union of India vs. State
of Haryana (2000) 10 SCC 482 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1975) 2 SCC 436
held inapplicable
Para 10
[1958] SCR 595
referred to
Para 5
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359
referred to
Para 6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
[1977] 3 SCR 120
referred to
Para 8
(2000) 10 SCC 482
referred to
Para 8
[1998] 3 SCR 1102
distinguished
Para 20
[1983] 2 SCR 743
referred to
Para 11
1992 SUPP (1) SCC 443
relied on
Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5393
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in WP No.9191 of 2009.
V. Lakshmikumaran, Rajiv Tyagi, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Charanya
Lakshmikumaran, Rohit Gupta, Pranav Mundra, Ms. Falguni Gupta, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Alok Sangwan, Sr. Adv., Sumit Sharma, Anurag Kulharia, Sandeep,
Apoorv Yadav, Vipul Dahiya, Rajat Sangwan, Samar Vijay Singh, Kamal
Mohan Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge to an order
dated 12th October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh (hereafter 'the High Court', for short) dismissing Civil
Writ Petition No.9191 of 2009 presented by the appellant and relegating
it to the remedy of an appeal under section 33 of the Haryana Value
Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereafter 'the VAT Act', for short).
2. Two questions emerge for decision on this appeal. First, whether
the High Court was justified in declining interference on the ground of
availability of an alternative remedy of appeal to the appellant under
section 33 of the VAT Act, which it had not pursued. Should the answer
to the first question be in the negative, we would next be required to
decide whether to remit the writ petition to the High Court for hearing it
on merits or to examine the correctness or otherwise of the orders
impugned before the High Court.
3. It appears on a perusal of the order under challenge in this
appeal that the appellant had questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy
Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST)-cum-Revisional Authority,
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
Kurukshetra (hereafter 'the Revisional Authority', for short) to reopen
proceedings, in exercise of suo motu revisional power conferred by
section 34 of the VAT Act, and to pass final orders holding that the two
assessment orders, both dated 28th February, 2007 passed by the ETOcum-Assessing Authority, Kurukshetra (hereafter 'the Assessing
Authority', for short) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05
suffered from illegality and impropriety as delineated therein, viz. that
the Assessing Authority erred in levying tax on mosquito repellant (a
product manufactured by the appellant) @ 4% instead of 10%. Keeping
in view the objection raised by counsel for the respondents that without
exhausting the remedy of appeal provided by section 33 of the VAT Act
"it would not be permissible to entertain this petition" and upon
consideration of the decision of this Court reported in (1975) 2 SCC 436
(Titagarh Paper Mills vs. Orissa State Electricity Board & Anr.) based
on which it was contended on their behalf that where any right or liberty
arises under a particular Act then the remedy available under that Act
has to be availed, the High Court was of the opinion that there can be no
presumption that the appellate authority would not be able to grant relief
sought in the writ petition; hence, the writ petition was dismissed and the
appellants were relegated to the appellate remedy.
4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few
words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the
Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the high courts
holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative
remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the
parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue
prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation
on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution
itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to Article 329
and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution.
Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the
exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ
powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has
been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition
ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the
petitioner before the high court, in a given case, has not pursued the
alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed
as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the high courts (bearing
in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
879
entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on
the exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial
precedents is that the high courts should normally not entertain a writ
petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.
At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an
alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the
jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would
not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition "not
maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this Court has made it clear
that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute
bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which
requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute,
is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.
Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and
"maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but
real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection
as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection
were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable
of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question
of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the high
courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being
maintainable may not be entertained by a high court for very many reasons
or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a
sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public
interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground
that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however,
examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such
entertainment would not be proper.
5. A little after the dawn of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench
of this Court in its decision reported in 1958 SCR 595 (State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Mohd. Nooh) had the occasion to observe as follows:
"10. In the next place it must be borne in mind that there is no
rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it
will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is
well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari
will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute,
(Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the
cases cited there). The fact that the aggrieved party has another
and adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should,
in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the
proceedings and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and
ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the
aggrieved party has exhausted his other statutory remedies, if
any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies
before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous
where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that
the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies. ***"
6. At the end of the last century, this Court in paragraph 15 of the
its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others) carved out the
exceptions on the existence whereof a Writ Court would be justified in
entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having
availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read
as under:
(i)
where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights;
(ii)
where there is violation of principles of natural justice;
(iii)
where the order or the proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or
(iv)
where the vires of an Act is challenged.
7. Not too long ago, this Court in its decision reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 884 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s.
Commercial Steel Limited) has reiterated the same principles in paragraph
11.
8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this
Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs.
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India
vs. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former
decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax
statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is
unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion
even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless
exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court
would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
881
raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by
the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory
appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that
where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed
questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by
the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an
alternative remedy being available.
9. Now, reverting to the facts of this appeal, we find that the
appellant had claimed before the High Court that the suo motu revisional
power could not have been exercised by the Revisional Authority in
view of the existing facts and circumstances leading to the only conclusion
that the assessment orders were legally correct and that the final orders
impugned in the writ petition were passed upon assuming a jurisdiction
which the Revisional Authority did not possess. In fine, the orders
impugned were passed wholly without jurisdiction. Since a jurisdictional
issue was raised by the appellant in the writ petition questioning the very
competence of the Revisional Authority to exercise suo motu power,
being a pure question of law, we are of the considered view that the plea
raised in the writ petition did deserve a consideration on merits and the
appellant's writ petition ought not to have been thrown out at the threshold.
10. Reliance placed by the High Court on the decision in Titagarh
Paper Mills (supra), in our view, was completely misplaced. The
respondent Electricity Board had levied coal surcharge on the appellant
company in terms of an agreement. Such agreement contained an
arbitration agreement in clause 23. Instead of pursuing its remedy in
arbitration, the appellant company unsuccessfully invoked the writ
jurisdiction. This Court was approached whereupon it was held that in
view of the issues raised, there was no reason why the appellant company
should not pursue its remedy in arbitration, having solemnly accepted
clause 23 of the agreement, and instead invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution to
determine questions which really form the subject matter of the arbitration
agreement. This decision could not have been of any relevance having
regard to the issue presented for resolution before the High Court by the
appellant, particularly when the disputes inter se were not referable to
arbitration.
11. We have reasons to believe, considering the nature of objection
raised by the respondents as recorded by the High Court in the impugned
order, that the High Court had mistakenly referred to Titagarh Paper
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
Mills (supra) while intending to rely on a different decision of this Court
on an appeal preferred by the same party, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 433
(Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa). While upholding
the impugned order of dismissal of the writ petition, where an order
passed by the Sales Tax Officer was under challenge, this Court in
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) held that the challenge being
confined to the regularity of proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer
and there being no suggestion that the concerned officer had no jurisdiction
to make an assessment, the decision in Mohd. Nooh (supra) was clearly
distinguishable since in that case there was total lack of jurisdiction. This
Court also held that under the scheme of the relevant Act, there was a
hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate
redress against the wrongful acts complained of and that since the
authority of the concerned officer to make an assessment was not in
question, recourse ought to be taken by initiating proceedings thereunder.
As noted above, the very jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority having
been questioned in the writ petition, the impugned order of the High
Court dismissing the writ petition without examining the merits of the
challenge cannot be sustained even if the High Court were to rely on
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) to support such order.
12. The High Court by dismissing the writ petition committed a
manifest error of law for which the order under challenge is unsustainable.
The same is, accordingly, set aside.
13. Moving on to decide the second question, ordering a remand
is an available option for us. However, having regard to the lapse of time
(almost a life term of fourteen years) since the orders impugned in the
writ petition were made, we feel that it would not be in the best interests
of justice to remit the matter to the High Court. Since prior to reserving
judgment on this appeal we had heard the parties on the merits of the
jurisdictional issue that the appellant had raised before the High Court, it
is time to rule on the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority.
14. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing,
marketing and sales of household insecticide products in various forms,
viz. mosquito coils, mats, refills, aerosols, baits and chalks under the
popular brand name "Good Knight" and "Hit" from, inter alia, its sales
office at Kurukshetra, and is an 'assessee' under the VAT Act.
15. In terms of section 7 of the VAT Act, the taxable goods have
been classified under Schedules A, B and C. It is found from Schedule
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
C (as originally enacted) that pesticides, weedicides and insecticides
were included in Entry 1 and taxable @ 4%.
16. Returns were filed by the appellant for the Assessment Years
2003-04 and 2004-05 declaring its gross turnover from manufacturing
and sales of insecticides and pesticides, besides other consumer goods.
Such returns were duly accepted. However, in view of an amendment
in Entry 67 of Schedule C introduced by a notification dated 30th June,
2005, notices were issued by the Assessing Authority as to why tax
liability @ 10% instead of 4% should not be imposed. Upon hearing the
representative of the appellant, orders dated 28th February, 2007 and
28th March, 2008 were passed by the Assessing Authority for the
Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, respectively, accepting the
classification of goods and the rate of tax as stated by the appellant in its
returns, i.e. 4%.
17. Subsequently, the Revisional Authority called for the
assessment records of the appellant for the Assessment Years 2003-04
and 2004-05 for revision of the assessment on classifying the household
insecticide products of the appellant as mosquito repellants and taxable
at the higher rate of tax, i.e. 10%, instead of 4%. Initially, show-cause
notices seeking to revise the assessments made for the Assessment
Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were issued, and such exercise was followed
up by identically worded final orders, both dated 2nd March, 2009.
18. Several legal questions including validity of certain notifications
were raised by the appellant before the High Court in its writ petition.
Apart from the question as to whether mosquito repellants are goods
classifiable as insecticides, pesticides, weedicides, etc., one other question
which the appellant sought to raise was whether an amendment in the
schedule of classification/rates of tax could be applied to completed
assessments for the assessment years prior to the amendment coming
into effect. However, before us, the only limited question which the
appellant raised was, whether the orders of the Revisional Authority,
both dated 2nd March, 2009, seeking to revise the orders of the Assessing
Authority dated 28th February, 2007 and 28th March, 2008 pertaining to
the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, have been issued in exercise
of jurisdiction conferred by law.
19. For facility of understanding, it would be convenient at this
stage to reproduce the material part from the revisional order passed in
respect of the Assessment Year 2004-05, below:
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
"I, xxxxxxx, Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner-cum- Revisional
Authority, Kurukshetra called for the assessment record of M/s
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., Pipli holding TIN xxxxxxx for the
assessment year 2004-05. Shri xxxxxxx, ETO-cum-Assessing
Authority Kurukshetra passed this assessment order on 28.3.2008.
On examination of the assessment record, I was prima facie of
the view that the said assessment order suffered from the following
illegalities and impropriates (sic, improprieties):
The assessing authority erred in levying tax on Mosquito Repellant
@ 4% Instead of 10%
Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued for 2.3.2009. On
2.3.2009 Shri Ajay Goel, Advocate of the firm appeared along
with application for adjournment on the plea that due to closing
month of March, 2009 the dealer is unable to get the case decided.
The application for adjournment is rejected as the dealer has not
to produce any account books or is not to prepare any documents
only law point is involved in the case. The dealer has sold mosquito
repellant and deposited tax @ 4%. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of M/s Sonic Electrochem and another vs.
STO and other (1998) 12- PHT-215 (SC) held that Jet Mat
Mosquito Repellant is not pesticides/insecticides. Therefore, these
goods are general goods and liable to tax at general rate of tax.
Hence, a notice was issued to the dealer to explain as to why tax
should not be levied at general rate of tax on the sale of mosquito
repellants. The counsel of the firm has not offered any arguments
on the issue. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of M/s Sonic Electrochem and another vs. STO and
other (1998) 12- PHT-215 (SC), it is unarguable clear that mosquito
repellant mats being unscheduled goods are taxable at general
rate of tax. Confusion was also cleared with the amendment to
entry 67 vide notification dated 1.7.2005.
In view of the above facts, it is clear that assessing authority
while framing assessment has erred in levying tax @ 4% on
mosquito repellants. Hence the assessment order dated 28.3.2008
is revised u/s 34 of the Act ibid as under:
TTO @ 10%
Rs.5,28,89,282
Rs.52,88,928
(Mosquito Repellants)
Tax already assessed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
885
By the AA in original
Order
Rs.21,15,571
Due
Rs.31,73,357
Issue Tax Demand Notice Challan for Rs.31,73,357 along with a
copy of the order to the dealer."
20. The assessment order dated 28th March, 2008 of the Assessing
Authority under section 15 of the VAT Act pertaining to Assessment
Year 2004-05, which was sought to be revised by the Revisional Authority,
had taken into consideration the decision of this Court reported in (1998)
6 SCC 397 (Sonic Electrochem vs. S.T.O.). The appellant therein having
sold 'Jet Mat', a mosquito repellent, it was ruled by this Court that the
same was liable to tax @ 10%. Considering such decision, a notice was
issued to the appellant to explain as to why tax should not be levied @
10% on the sale of 'Godrej Mat'. Put to notice, it was inter alia argued
on behalf of the appellant before the Assessing Authority that the
Haryana Tax Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal', for short), constituted
under section 57 of the VAT Act, by its order dated 21st November, 2001
had the occasion to dismiss a petition filed by the department seeking
review of an earlier order dated 22nd March, 2000. The Assessing
Authority extracted the relevant part of the order 21st November, 2001
of the Tribunal passed on the review petition in its order dated 28th March,
2008, reading as follows:
"The only limited question to be addressed is whether the ratio of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the above
mentioned case of M/s Sonic Electrochem and others is applicable
in the present case? This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as the
said judgment was delivered in special circumstances were there
was specific an entry 129 dealing with mosquito repellants and
hence the Court held that judgment would be covered under entry
129. However, there is no such corresponding entry in the Haryana
General Sales Tax Act and therefore the issue would be whether
mosquito repellant would fall within the entry dealing with
insecticide etc. or not? The Hon'ble Madras High Court, the
Tribunal in the case of Transelektra Domestic Products Pvt. Ltd.,
and others vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Porur Assessment Circle
Madras and others has clearly held that mosquito repellants
M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION
OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY [DIPANKAR DATTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
containing 4% Alethrin' was an insecticide and relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal in the
case of M/s Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. Kundli (Sonepat) vs
State of Haryana has also held that Mosquito Repellants is an
insecticide and hence liable to concessional rate of tax. The same
view has been taken by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the impugned
order and I do not find any infirmity in this order. It has not been
contested that Jet Mats does contain 'Allethrin' which is an
insecticide. Hence, in these circumstances, the present review
petition is dismissed."
Being bound by the decision of the Tribunal, the Assessing Authority
formed an opinion and returned a finding that he had no other alternative
but to vacate the notice issued by him proposing to levy tax @ 10%
instead of 4% and proceeded to do so.
21. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran,
learned counsel, contended that the Assessing Authority having passed
the order dated 28th March, 2008 taking into consideration the decision
of the Tribunal, which in turn distinguished the decision in Sonic
Electrochem (supra), and such decision having attained finality, the
Revisional Authority could not have assumed a jurisdiction to suo motu
issue the impugned show-cause notices as well as the final revisional
orders under section 34 of the VAT Act holding that mosquito repellent
mats being unscheduled goods, are taxable at the general rate of tax.
According to him, the Revisional Authority was as much bound by the
order of the Tribunal as the Assessing Authority was having regard to
the similarity of issues involved and it was not open to such authority to
take a view different from the one expressed by the Tribunal.
22. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Lakshmikumaran to the
decision of this Court reported in 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 443 (Union of
India and Ors. Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.) in support
of the proposition that in disposing of quasi-judicial issues before them,
the Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate
authorities and that the principle of judicial discipline requires that the
orders of the higher appellate authorities are followed unreservedly by
the subordinate authorities.
23. Mr. Lakshmikumaran, accordingly, prayed that upon the
revisional orders being set aside, the orders of the Assessing Authority
be restored.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
24. Per contra, Mr. Alok Sangwan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, contended that the Revisional Authority did not
exceed its jurisdiction in exercising suo motu powers under section 34
of the VAT Act. By referring to notifications issued at or about the relevant
time amending Schedule C and the decision in Sonic Electrochem (supra),
he sought to argue on the merits of the determination made by the
Revisional Authority and how she was right in her findings that the
mosquito repellants manufactured by the appellant were liable to be taxed
@ 10% in terms of the decision in Sonic Electrochem (supra), and not
4% as assessed by the Assessing Authority in the orders under revision.
He also submitted that the orders of the Revisional Authority do not
merit interference, and the appeal ought to be dismissed.
25.