Availability of statutory appeal warrants relegating petitioner to appellate remedy, with delay condoned.

The petitioner-company, engaged in manufacturing oil/solvent from soyabean, held an eligibility certificate exempting it from sales tax from 14 February 1992 to 13 February 1997.

Although its returns had been accepted, purchase-tax liabilities were subsequently imposed for assessment years 1992–93, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 through orders dated 24 September 2001.

Those orders and consequential appellate orders were set aside by the High Court in WPT No. 1681 of 2009 on 21 November 2023, with directions for fresh consideration under Section 28 of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, after granting an effective opportunity of hearing.

On remand, the petitioner sought the documents and materials relied upon by the Revenue, including Form A-20, but alleged that they were not supplied.

The Assistant Commissioner nevertheless passed a fresh order dated 30 July 2024 reassessing the petitioner’s tax liability and relying upon the earlier orders.

The petitioner also challenged a Form ‘U’ sale proclamation dated 30 September 2025 proposing auction of its industrial land.

The State opposed the writ petitions on the grounds of availability of an appellate remedy under Section 61, delay and laches, and absence of violation of the earlier High Court judgment.

Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the petitioner’s efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 61 of the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the reassessment order dated 30 July 2024 on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 28, denial of relevant documents, breach of natural justice, and disregard of the earlier remand directions?

Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal could be condoned in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 ordinarily should not be entertained where the aggrieved party has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, particularly an appeal.

Section 61 of the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 provided the petitioner with a statutory appellate remedy against the reassessment order.

Section 28 of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 governed reassessment and required consideration in accordance with law and observance of a fair opportunity of hearing, as reflected in the earlier High Court judgment dated 21 November 2023.

The Court also applied the discretionary principle that delay in pursuing the alternative remedy may be condoned where justice requires, while leaving the merits of the underlying tax dispute to the statutory appellate authority.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s allegations regarding non-supply of documents, violation of natural justice, improper reassessment, or non-compliance with the earlier remand order.

Instead, it held that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 61 and therefore directed the petitioner to pursue that remedy.

Recognising the delay between the impugned order dated 30 July 2024 and the filing of the writ petitions, the Court condoned the delay from the date of the impugned order until the date on which the petitioner received a copy of the High Court’s order.

The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal independently and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation in the writ proceedings.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 30 July 2024 within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned for the intervening period, and the appellate authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal in accordance with law and independently on merits.