Order Date – 01 February 2023

Parties: M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs The Excise And Taxation Officer Cum-Assessing Authority & Ors.

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing Tand sales of household insecticide products in various forms. 
• The Assessing Authority accepted the classification of mosquito repellents at 4% for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
• 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 mosquito repellents at 10%, instead of 4% holding that mosquito repellent mats being unscheduled goods, are taxable at the general rate of tax.
• The High Court dismissed Civil Writ Petition presented by the appellant and relegating it to the remedy of an appeal under section 33 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Issue –

• Whether the Revisional Authority had the jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings in exercise of suo motu revisional power conferred by section 34?

Order – 

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court held according to Article 226 of the Constitution 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.
• 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.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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. 
• 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.
• 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. Thus, it is not the Assessing Authority’s orders but those passed by the Revisional Authority, which suffer from a patent illegality. Hence the impugned revisional orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed.