The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and avoiding bypassing statutory procedures when a statutory remedy of appeal is available.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 7628/2015, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has quashed and set aside the Assessment Order passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.

2. By an Assessment Order dated 28.02.2015, the Assessing Officer denied the Input rebate under Section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MP VAT Act, 2002’) to the respondent. Without preferring an appeal against the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002, the respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court. Despite the specific objection raised on behalf of the State not to entertain the writ petition against the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate in view of the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002, the High Court entertained the writ petition by observing that there are no disputed questions of facts involved in the matter and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for. That thereafter by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate and consequently has allowed the Input rebate in favour of the respondent – assessee – original writ petitioner. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal.

3. Number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties on merits including the entertainability of the writ petition by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate. However, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we propose to dismiss the writ petition preferred before the High Court and relegate the respondent – assessee – original writ petition to prefer a statutory appeal against the Assessment Order, we are not considering any other submission on merits on whether the High Court is justified in allowing the Input rebate or not.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length on the entertainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court against the Assessment Order and the reasoning given by the High Court while entertaining the writ petition against the Assessment Order despite the statutory remedy by way of an appeal available, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory appeal would be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002.

5. While entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate, the High Court has observed that there are no disputed question of facts arise and it is a question to be decided on admitted facts for which no dispute or enquiry into factual aspects of the matter is called for. The aforesaid can hardly be a good/valid ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory remedy of appeal was available.

6. At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Greatship (India) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2022, decided on 20.09.2022) is required to be referred to. After taking into consideration the earlier decis