2003 (2) TMI 447 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of the provision contained in article 323-B of the Constitution of India.
2. Jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Special Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act, 1992.
3. Observations on the decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India regarding the power of judicial review by constitutional courts.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order and release detained goods. The Special Government Pleader contended that under article 323-B and the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act, the petitioner should approach the Tribunal first. The Act establishes the Special Tribunal with powers akin to the High Court for tax-related matters, including the release of goods under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Citing the decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the court noted that constitutional courts have the authority for judicial review on constitutional validity, rendering the writ petition not maintainable without first approaching the Tribunal.

2. The Special Tribunal, as per the Act, holds jurisdiction, powers, and authority similar to the High Court for tax-related disputes. It can adjudicate on matters of levy, assessment, collection, and enforcement of taxes under specified State Acts. The Tribunal's wide powers encompass issues such as the release of goods under relevant tax laws. The court emphasized the Tribunal's role in handling disputes related to tax matters, thereby indicating that approaching the Tribunal is a prerequisite before seeking relief from the High Court.

3. Referring to the decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the court highlighted the importance of constitutional courts in exercising judicial review on statutory provisions and rules' constitutional validity. The court noted that the decision in a previous case was not binding due to being per incuriam and underscored that constitutional courts are competent to pronounce on the constitutionality of laws. This observation further supported the stance that approaching the Tribunal first is necessary before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction for relief. The writ petition was deemed not maintainable, and the petitioner was directed to seek appropriate redressal before the Tribunal, with the impugned order and documents to be returned promptly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court clarifies the issues surrounding the maintainability of the writ petition, the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal, and the significance of constitutional courts in matters of judicial review.