2020 (12) TMI 1231 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petiotion - entitled to file appeal but not done so - 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. The Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to prefer appeal within the statutory limitation period under TNVAT Act.
2. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain Writ Petition challenging orders not appealed against within the limitation period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to prefer appeal within the statutory limitation period under TNVAT Act
The Respondent had passed an order under the TNVAT Act for the year 2011-2012 against the Petitioner, who received the order on 23.01.2015. The Petitioner had the right to appeal against the order within 30 days from the date of receipt, with a provision for the Appellate Authority to condone delay for an additional 30 days upon showing sufficient cause. However, the Petitioner did not file an appeal within the statutory limitation period but instead filed a Writ Petition on 30.06.2015, challenging the order passed by the Respondent. The Court noted the failure of the Petitioner to adhere to the statutory timeline for filing an appeal, which led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
The judgment referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, which emphasized that the High Court, in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain Writ Petitions challenging orders not appealed against within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. The Court, in line with this legal position, held that it could not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy in the matter due to the failure of the Petitioner to avail the appellate remedy within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without any costs imposed.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals under the TNVAT Act and highlights the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 when it comes to entertaining Writ Petitions challenging orders not appealed against within the prescribed limitation period.