The personal hearing was fixed on a particular day . The AO was not available and therefore no hearing took place . Multiple telephone calls were made to the AO for personal hearing but no such hearing was materialized . The AO passed the\u00a0 order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT and CST Act. The respondent filed writ petition challenging the order on the ground that the order was beyond \u00a0the period of limitation \u00a0. High Court entertained the writ petition and quashed the assessment order and the demand notice . On appeal the Supreme Court held that when the statutory remedy is\u00a0 available \u00a0High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order by passing the statutory remedies . Court also observed that\u00a0 when there is an alternative remedy is available\u00a0 , judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions . Accordingly the\u00a0 order of High Court was set \u00a0aside and directed to prefer appeal remedy with in four weeks . \u00a0\u00a0Referred\u00a0 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors ( 2010) 8SCC 110 , (CA No. 4956 of 2022 dt 20 -9 -2022 )<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Maharashtra Value Added Tax , 2002 (MVAT) \u2013Central Sales Tax Act , 1956 (CST)<\/p>\n
S. 23 : Assessment \u2013 Order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing \u2013 High Court quashed the Assessment order \u2013 On appeal the Supreme Court held that , when an alternative remedy of filing an appeal is available under the Act , High Court should not have entertained the writ petition \u2013 Order of High Court is set aside [S. 23(2), Sales Tax Act , 1856 , S. 9(2), Art , 226, 227 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gst-law"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7Mz","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29919"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29919\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29920,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29919\/revisions\/29920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}