9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1633 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - validity of assessment order - violation of principles of natural justice - Held that - there is no dispute that as against the order of assessment, there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner before the appellate authority. When such an alternative remedy of appeal provided under the statute is available against the impugned assessment order, this Court cannot interfere with such assessment order by entertaining this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it is well settled that in such kind of matters, the party should exhaust all the available alternative remedies before resorting to file a Writ Petition before this Court. Reliance placed in the decision of the case of M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. Versus The Union of India and others 2015 (2) TMI 429 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that writ is not proper remedy, when the alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal is available to the petitioner therein. Petition dismissed only on the ground that there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on violation of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of hearing. Analysis: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent, alleging a violation of natural justice principles due to lack of opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner relied on Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and a previous decision of the Court. However, the Court noted that a notice was indeed issued to the petitioner inviting objections, which the petitioner received but failed to respond to by submitting objections. The Court found it perplexing that the petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice when they did not avail themselves of the opportunity provided by the notice. The petitioner contended that besides issuing a notice, they should have been granted a personal hearing. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that since the petitioner did not respond to the initial notice served on them, expecting the authority to provide a personal hearing later was unreasonable. The Court distinguished a previous decision cited by the petitioner, highlighting that in that case, the petitioner had requested a personal hearing, unlike the present case where the petitioner did not file any objections despite receiving a notice. The Court reiterated that an appeal remedy was available to the petitioner against the assessment order before the appellate authority. The Court emphasized the principle that in fiscal matters, parties must exhaust all available alternative remedies before resorting to filing a Writ Petition. Citing various legal precedents, the Court reiterated that filing a Writ Petition without utilizing the statutory appeal remedy is not permissible. The Court referred to its previous decision where a similar view was taken, emphasizing that the writ was not the appropriate remedy when an appeal option existed. As the competent authority had issued a notice to the petitioner, who failed to utilize the opportunity provided, the Court held that the assessment order could not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and all grounds must be raised before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal within four weeks. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's contentions, basing the dismissal solely on the availability of an appeal remedy. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
