NDLI: M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	ss. 33 and 34 Haryana Value Added Tax Act 2003 Revisional jurisdiction
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (6 of 2003)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
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 there-against – 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 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 92
Petitioner	M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd
Respondent	The Excise And Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors.
SCR	[2023] 3 S.C.R. 871
Judgement Date	2023-02-01
Case Number	5393

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

The State of Karnataka Vs. M/s. M. K. Agro Tech. Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (aa) & Anr.

M/s. Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors.

Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (pw) Slapper & Another Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/ Assessing Authority

M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and Anr.

M/s Southern Motors Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

The State of Haryanaand Others Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

M/s Modi Naturals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax Up

M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. The Assessing Authority and Ors. Etc. Etc.

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors.

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

The State of Karnataka Vs. M/s. M. K. Agro Tech. Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (aa) & Anr.

M/s. Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors.

Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (pw) Slapper & Another Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/ Assessing Authority

M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and Anr.

M/s Southern Motors Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

The State of Haryanaand Others Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

M/s Modi Naturals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax Up

M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. The Assessing Authority and Ors. Etc. Etc.

M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing Authority & Ors.