2020 (12) TMI 1268 - 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 appeal under TNVAT Act.
2. Entertaining Writ Petition against order not appealed within limitation period.
3. Applicability of Section 84 of TNVAT Act for rectification of impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the timeliness of filing an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The Respondent had passed an order against the Petitioner, who received it on 12.07.2017. The Petitioner, however, failed to appeal within the prescribed 30-day period from the receipt of the order. Instead, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition on 20.11.2018 challenging the order, which was beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the High Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it should not entertain a Writ Petition against an order not appealed within the maximum limitation period before the Appellate Authority. The Court declined to delve into the merits of the case due to the failure of the Petitioner to adhere to the statutory appeal timeline. However, the Court clarified that the Petitioner could pursue rectification of the impugned order under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, if eligible, without expressing any view on the validity of the claim made by the Petitioner.

3. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with the mentioned clarifications and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals under the TNVAT Act and highlights the availability of alternative remedies such as seeking rectification under Section 84 of the Act, subject to eligibility and compliance with the law.