[M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. CCT & Ors., (2008) 307 ITR 276
(SC)]
The challenge in the appeal to the Supreme Court was to the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the
writ appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that it was not maintainable.
The appeal was filed u/s.2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). It was held
that the order was passed in exercise of power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, ‘the Constitution’)
against which the Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable. The order of the
learned Single Judge was passed on 09.11.2005. Against the said order, special
leave petition was filed which was disposed of by the Supreme Court by order
dated February 16, 2006.
The Supreme Court had directed the High Court to consider
the LPA on the merits and time was granted to prefer the LPA within three
weeks. The High Court was directed to dispose of the LPA on the merits if it
was otherwise free from defect.
The High Court construed the order as if the Supreme Court
had only waived the limitation for filing of the Letters Patent appeal and
there was no direction to consider the case on merits.
Before the Supreme Court it was contended that the
conclusion of the High Court that merely limitation was waived was contrary to
the clear terms of the earlier order of this Court. Additionally, it was
submitted that the prayer in the writ petition was to quash the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax. That being so, the mere fact
that the writ petition was styled under Article 227 of Constitution was of no
consequence. It is the nature of the relief sought and the controversy
involved which determines the article which is applicable.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not
justified in holding that the Supreme Court’s earlier order only waived the
limitation for filing a Letters Patent appeal. The Supreme Court held that on
that score alone the High Court’s order was unsustainable.
The Supreme Court observed that in addition, the High Court
seemed to have gone by the nomenclature, i.e., the description given in
the writ petition to be one under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High
Court did not consider the nature of the controversy and the prayer involved
in the writ petition. As noted above, the prayer was to quash the order of
assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax levying
purchase tax as well as entry tax.
The Supreme Court referring to the precedents held that the
High Court was not justified in holding that the Letters Patent appeal was not
maintainable. In addition, a bare reading of the Court’s earlier order showed
that the impugned order was clearly erroneous. The impugned order was set
aside directing that the writ appeal shall be heard by the Division Bench on
merits.
