2020 (12) TMI 1265 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - instead of filing appeal, petitioner has filed this petition beyond limitation period - 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. Viewed from that perspective, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order under TNVAT Act filed beyond the limitation period.
2. Entertaining a Writ Petition challenging a statutory authority's order not appealed within the limitation period.
3. Scope of High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent issued an order under the TNVAT Act, which the Petitioner received on 28.07.2017. The Petitioner could have appealed against the order within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for sufficient cause. Instead of appealing, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition on 20.11.2018, challenging the order beyond the 60-day limitation period. The court noted the failure to appeal within the prescribed time and dismissed the Writ Petition due to the delay in filing the appeal.

2. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it should not entertain a Writ Petition against a statutory authority's order not appealed within the limitation period. The court declined to examine the merits of the case due to the failure to adhere to the statutory appeal timeline. However, the court clarified that the Petitioner could pursue rectification of the order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act if entitled, without expressing any opinion on the validity of the Petitioner's claim.

3. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed with the mentioned clarifications, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without imposing any costs. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for appeals and the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in such cases. It also preserves the Petitioner's right to seek rectification through the appropriate legal channels in accordance with the law.