2015 (4) TMI 740 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Petition previously decided - Held that - writ petitions are clearly barred on the ground of res judicata. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. The dismissal of these writ petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file an appeal under the provisions of Act and if such an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with the provisions of law. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for multiple years under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, maintainability of writ petitions, res judicata, withdrawal of earlier writ petitions, impleading Southern Railway as a respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for four consecutive years. Initially, the petitioner filed writ petitions challenging these orders. However, a Single Judge granted interim stay subject to the condition of paying 25% of the tax amount demanded. Dissatisfied, the petitioner appealed to a Division Bench, which upheld the condition. Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the writ petitions without availing further legal options. The court noted that the withdrawal did not grant liberty for a second petition on the same grounds, leading to the dismissal of the current writ petitions on the basis of res judicata.

The court emphasized that the dismissal of the current writ petitions does not prevent the petitioner from appealing under the law within 30 days. Furthermore, the petitioner's failure to seek the return of original orders from the earlier petitions was addressed by directing the submission of a representation for their return. The court dismissed the writ petitions without costs and allowed for the return of the original orders upon submission of the necessary representation.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions citing res judicata due to the withdrawal of earlier petitions without specific liberty for a second filing. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and seeking necessary permissions before initiating legal actions to avoid issues like res judicata.