2020 (10) TMI 1227 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal (inspite of being available) before that Revisional Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT - There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. In this context, it must be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction and held that Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. This Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the factual controversies involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Failure to Prefer Revisional Appeal under TNVAT Act, 2006

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a case where the Respondent had determined the Petitioner's liability for the year 2012-2013 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer a revision against the order within 30 days from the date of its receipt before the Revisional Authority, the Joint Commissioner, who could condone the delay in filing the appeal for an extended period of 30 days if sufficient cause was shown.

2. However, instead of opting for the statutory remedy of preferring a revision, the Petitioner directly filed a Writ Petition challenging the order. The court noted that there was no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not resorting to the alternative remedy provided under the statute. The court cited the legal position explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Limited, emphasizing that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures unless statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to address extraordinary situations.

3. The court highlighted that matters involving revenue, where statutory remedies are available, are not suitable for bypassing the alternative remedy provided by statute. The judgment emphasized the need for good and sufficient reasons to bypass statutory remedies. Given this legal position, the court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the factual controversies in the case and dismissed the Writ Petition, stating it cannot be entertained. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.