Telangana High Court
M/S.R.K.Distilleries Private Limited vs The Appellate Deputy on 18 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION NOS.32035, 32074, 32191
AND 32461 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri T.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State
Tax for the respondents.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the orders impugned
herein, on the joint request of the parties, these writ petitions were
analogously heard on admission.
3. The facts are taken from W.P.No.32035 of 2024. The order
under challenge is the appellate order dated 01.02.2024.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under
the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'), the
respondents have no authority, jurisdiction and competence to
impose the tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that this is the second visit of the petitioner for the same grievance
to this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11674 of 2021
and batch before this Court, which were disposed of by a common
order dated 28.01.2022, whereunder the petitioner was directed to
avail the remedy of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly submits that against the first appellate order impugned
herein also, the petitioner has a remedy under the Act to approach
the Appellate Tribunal, but the petitioner may not be relegated to
avail the said remedy because the impugned order is erroneous in
nature. No useful purpose would be served in sending the
petitioner to the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that he will
advance his arguments on the basis of certain judgments which
can be considered by this Court itself.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits
that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy before the
Appellate Tribunal.
6. We have considered the aforesaid aspect. In the first round
itself in W.P.No.11674 of 2021 and batch, this Court has not
entertained the writ petitions because of availability of statutory
alternative remedy of appeal. At present also, the petitioner has
another remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. If we
agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that in the impugned order adequate reasons have not been
assigned by the appellate authority, it will make the order
'erroneous' and not without jurisdiction. Such order can be called
in question before the Appellate Tribunal.
7. This is trite that despite availability of alternative remedy,
the writ petition can be entertained under certain circumstances.
One of such is, violation of principles of natural justice (see
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1).
The judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was subsequently
considered by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd.
v. R.S. Pandey 2 and it was held as under:-
"17. ...But normally, the High Court should not
entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is
something more in a case, something going to the root
of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would
show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the
writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies
provided by the statute...."
8. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S.Pandey
(supra), mere violation of principles of natural justice cannot be a
ground for entertaining a petition. "Maintainability" and
"entertainability" of the petition are two different facets. Every
petition which is maintainable is not required to be entertained.
The Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 10.04.2024 in
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
(2005) 8 SCC 264
the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and
Others 3 disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in
W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division
Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability
of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court opined that merely
because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain
a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition
and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has
clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person. It has been held that this
rule applies with greater rigour in matters
involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types
of public money and the dues of banks and other
financial institutions. The Court clearly observed
that, while dealing with the petitions involving
challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public
dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the
legislations enacted by Parliament and State
Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto
themselves inasmuch as they not only contain
comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but
also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for
redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It
has been held that, though the powers of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of
widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of
the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this
Court. The Court further held that though the rule of
exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of
discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is
(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541
difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court
should entertain a petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. The impugned appellate order is not shown to be without
jurisdiction. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative
statutory remedy. An erroneous order can be corrected by the
statutory adjudicatory forum i.e., the Tribunal. Thus, we are
not inclined to entertain these writ petitions.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of by reserving
the liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid remedy. If the
petitioner prefers such appeals within fifteen days from today, the
Appellate Tribunal shall consider and decide the same on merits
and the appeals shall not be thrown overboard on the ground of
delay. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
18.02.2025
sa/vs
