2020 (10) TMI 1235 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order - Rejection of application for revision of liability of tax - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. Having regard to that legal position, it is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing a Writ Petition challenging a statutory order under TNVAT Act.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court ruling in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited to the present case.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolved around the timeliness of filing a Writ Petition challenging a statutory order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The Respondent had rejected the Petitioner's application to revise the tax liability for the assessment year 2012-13. The Petitioner, instead of appealing within the prescribed period of 30 days, filed a Writ Petition beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to follow the proper appellate procedure as provided under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, which allows for an extended period of 30 days to condone delay in filing an appeal if sufficient cause is shown. As the Petitioner did not avail of this remedy and directly approached the High Court through a Writ Petition, the Court held that it could not entertain the petition due to the delay in filing.

2. The second issue involved the applicability of a ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited to the present case. The Supreme Court had emphasized that High Courts should not entertain Writ Petitions challenging orders of statutory authorities that were not appealed against within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Citing this legal position, the High Court in the present case declined to express any view on the merits of the controversy involved, as the Petitioner had bypassed the appellate process and directly approached the Court through a Writ Petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition, without imposing any costs on either party.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and exhausting appellate remedies before seeking judicial intervention through a Writ Petition. The Court's decision was guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the limited scope of High Courts to entertain such petitions when statutory avenues for appeal have not been pursued within the stipulated timeframes.