1996 (8) TMI 485 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Availability of alternative remedy under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
- Exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment, contending that the order was passed before the expiry of the time granted for filing objections. The Court noted that although the petitioner had been granted adjournments in the past, on the date the order was passed, the time granted for filing objections had not expired. Consequently, the Court held that the order of assessment was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and denied the right to file objections, leading to the petitioner not being compelled to file an appeal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The judgment delves into the availability of an alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, emphasizing that the right of appeal is a substantive and efficacious remedy. However, the Court acknowledged that in cases of gross violation of natural justice, exceptions to the rule of exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India exist. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that where fundamental rights are affected, rules of natural justice are violated, or there is a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in an authority, the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 can be invoked, irrespective of the existence of an alternative remedy.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of assessment and quashing it. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent without waiting for a notice fixing the date for hearing. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring fair proceedings, even in the presence of alternative remedies. The Court disposed of the case without imposing any costs, thereby providing relief to the petitioner while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.