2020 (12) TMI 1267 - 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. Timeliness of filing a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by a Statutory Authority beyond the limitation period for appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D. Audikesavalu of the Madras High Court pertains to a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging an order passed by the Respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The Respondent had issued the order to the Petitioner for the year 2012-2013, and the Petitioner received it on 10.07.2017. The Petitioner had the right to appeal against this order within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days with sufficient cause. However, the Petitioner did not appeal but filed the Writ Petition on 20.11.2018, beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

The judgment references a ruling 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 a High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order not appealed within the statutory limitation period before the Appellate Authority. In line with this precedent, the Madras High Court declined to delve into the merits of the controversy in the present case. However, the Court clarified that the Petitioner could pursue rectification of the impugned order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act if entitled to do so, without expressing any view on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed with the mentioned clarifications, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without any costs being imposed. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for appealing orders passed by Statutory Authorities and highlights the avenues available for seeking redressal within the framework of the law.