2020 (10) TMI 1274 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - levy of penalty u/s 16(2)(d) the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - HELD THAT - The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order under Section 31 of TNGST Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 30 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 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. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 16(2)(d) of the TNGST Act.
2. Failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a Writ Petition in such cases.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Respondent levied a penalty under Section 16(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, upon receiving the order, had the right to appeal within 30 days under Section 31 of the TNGST Act. The Appellate Authority could condone a delay of up to 30 days if valid reasons were provided. However, the Petitioner did not file an appeal within the stipulated timeframe but instead initiated a Writ Petition challenging the order beyond the 60-day limitation period from the date of receipt of the order.

Failure to File Appeal:
The Petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal within the prescribed period was a crucial aspect of the case. Despite the availability of the appeal mechanism under the TNGST Act, the Petitioner chose to directly approach the High Court through a Writ Petition. This failure to adhere to the statutory appeal process raised questions regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such petitions.

Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The judgment referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a similar matter, emphasizing that the High Court should not entertain Writ Petitions challenging orders of statutory authorities that were not appealed against within the specified limitation period. Citing this legal position, the High Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case due to the Petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed appeal procedure. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the associated Miscellaneous Petition was closed without any costs imposed.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory appeal procedures and the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining Writ Petitions challenging orders not appealed within the specified timeframe. The decision underscored the significance of following due process and exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition in this case.