2013 (4) TMI 632 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interest u/s 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Held that - As decided in Raj Kumar Shivhare vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another 2010 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT that in such matters, exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not proper and the parties should be directed to approach the appropriate forum available as alternative remedy under the statute itself. Thus dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment order, availability of statutory revisional remedy, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226

Challenge to assessment order:
The petitioner challenged the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, which levied interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, stating that a statutory revisional remedy is available under section 33 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, now re-designated as 'Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax'. The petitioner's counsel argued that the High Court could decide the matter without requiring the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy. However, the court held that in fiscal matters, when an alternative statutory remedy is provided, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 without directing the petitioner to first avail the alternative remedy.

Availability of statutory revisional remedy:
The court cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the High Court to support its stance. The Supreme Court, in a case, held that in such matters, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 is not proper, and parties should approach the appropriate forum as an alternative remedy under the statute. Similarly, the Division Bench of the High Court in another case held a similar view. Based on these precedents, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the revisional authority within four weeks from the date of the order.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226:
The court emphasized that in line with the legal principles established by higher courts and the Division Bench of the High Court, it was imperative to adhere to the statutory remedies available before resorting to Article 226. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the revisional authority within a specified timeframe. The Registry was instructed to return the original order to the petitioner after retaining a copy, and no costs were awarded in the matter.