2016 (2) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - writ petition - The contention of the petitioner as projected by the learned counsel appearing for them before this Court in these Writ petitions is to the effect that the Assessing Authority has not considered the scope of the clarification issued and also erroneously applied certain provisions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2007 while passing the orders of assessment. Therefore it is contended that the Writ petitions are maintainable. Held that - Needless to say that if the consideration of objection was not proper or erroneous that cannot be a ground to maintain the writ petition since the alleged erroneous consideration or improper consideration cannot be stated as violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand it may be a good ground for filing an appeal. Therefore when the present assessment order having been passed by the competent authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the same cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has to raise all those grounds only before the appellate authority who is also a fact finding authority. Writ petitions are not maintainable solely on the ground that availability of alternative remedy. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders by Assistant Commissioner, scope of clarification issued by Advance Ruling Committee, maintainability of Writ petitions, consideration of statutory appeal as proper remedy.

Analysis:
The Writ petitions challenge assessment orders by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Sivagangai Assessment Circle, Sivagangai. The petitioner was given the opportunity to submit explanations based on a clarification issued by the Advance Ruling Committee. The petitioner argues that the Assessing Authority did not consider the scope of the clarification and incorrectly applied provisions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The contention is that the Writ petitions are maintainable due to these reasons.

The High Court notes that statutory appeal lies before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar, against assessment orders, which must be filed within 30 days. The Court emphasizes that the Appellate Authority is a fact-finding body empowered to consider objections and pass orders in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Court cannot delve into factual aspects at this stage to determine errors in applying provisions or clarifications.

The Court rules that challenging the impugned assessment orders on their merits is not within its purview as an effective alternative remedy through a statutory appeal exists. It cites various legal precedents to support the principle that resorting to Writ petitions without exhausting statutory remedies is impermissible in fiscal matters. The Court reiterates that the Appellate Authority is the appropriate forum to address objections and errors in assessment orders.

Ultimately, the Court dismisses the Writ petitions on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy through a statutory appeal. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks. The Court refrains from expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's contentions, leaving them to be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of following the proper statutory procedures in challenging assessment orders and emphasizes the role of the Appellate Authority in addressing objections and errors in such orders.