2020 (12) TMI 1266 - 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. Failure to prefer appeal within the statutory limitation period under the TNVAT Act.
2. Entertaining a Writ Petition challenging an order not appealed against before the Appellate Authority.
3. Clarification on the right to seek rectification of the impugned order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of the Petitioner failing to prefer an appeal within the statutory limitation period as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The Respondent had passed an order against the Petitioner, who received the copy of the order on a specific date. The Petitioner, instead of appealing within the stipulated 30-day period, filed a Writ Petition challenging the order after the expiration of the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The judgment referenced 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 High Courts should not entertain Writ Petitions challenging orders not appealed against within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. In line with this principle, the Court declined to delve into the merits of the controversy in the present matter. However, the Court clarified that the Petitioner could pursue rectification of the impugned order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, if entitled, without expressing any view on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner.

3. As a result of the above analysis, the Writ Petition was dismissed with the provided clarifications, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without imposing any costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods for appeals and the limitations on High Courts in entertaining Writ Petitions challenging orders not appealed against before the Appellate Authority. The Court's decision aimed to maintain the statutory framework while also preserving the Petitioner's right to seek rectification through appropriate legal channels.