2018 (6) TMI 1615 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - errors apparent on the face of the records - wrong appreciation of the legal position - HELD THAT - The issues involved in the instant cases are not purely questions of law, but mixed questions of fact and law, which need to be adjudicated. This adjudicatory process cannot be exercised at this juncture, that too, in a writ jurisdiction, since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of appeal before the appellate authority - Since this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner should definitely avail the remedy under the said Act, an interim protection can be granted to the petitioner till they move the appellate authority while holding that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders contained errors apparent on the face of the records and were based on a wrong understanding of the legal position. However, the court noted that the issues at hand were not purely legal but a mix of fact and law. The court emphasized that the Act provides efficacious remedies, including the right to appeal before the appellate authority. It stated that the adjudicatory process should not be bypassed through writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available. The court highlighted that the appellate authority has the power to reevaluate the factual aspects of the case, making it inappropriate to address the issues at the writ stage.

The petitioner raised concerns about substantial input-tax credit that needed to be reversed for the assessment year 2014-15 and the possibility of coercive action by the respondent if the appeal remedy was pursued. Despite this, the court held that the petitioner must utilize the remedy provided under the Act. While dismissing the writ petitions and connected applications, the court granted interim protection to the petitioner until they approach the appellate authority. The court clarified that the writ petitions were not maintainable, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process.

In the final decision, the court dismissed the writ petitions without costs and allowed the petitioner liberty to file appeals before the appellate authority within 30 days. It directed that the appellate authority should entertain the appeals without rejecting them on the ground of limitation. Additionally, the court ordered that no precipitative action should be taken by the respondent based on the impugned assessment orders until the petitioner presents the appeals and seeks appropriate interim relief before the appellate authority.