2020 (10) TMI 1241 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - challenge against assessment order - Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order, but the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before that Appellate 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 has to 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 where it was held that 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. This Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a case where the Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Respondent assessing their liability under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Respondent had assessed the Petitioner's liability for the year 2014-15, and the Petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal against that order under Section 51 of the Act within 30 days. However, the Petitioner did not avail of this statutory remedy and instead 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 judgment cited the legal position explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise -vs- Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 1 SCC 260], emphasizing that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. The Court highlighted that statutory remedies should be preferred unless extraordinary situations exist, such as when the vires of the statute are in question or public wrongs are involved. The judgment also criticized the practice of filing petitions under Article 226 solely for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings.

The Court, based on the legal position cited, refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the controversy in the matter. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed as it could not be entertained due to the failure of the Petitioner to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under the statute. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.