9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1315 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - condonation of delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 30 days - Section 51 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order under Section 51 of TNVAT 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 on 10.07.2018 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. Having regard to that legal position, it is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Failure to prefer appeal within the statutory period under TNVAT Act. 2. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Precedent set by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Analysis: Issue 1: Failure to prefer appeal within the statutory period under TNVAT Act The Respondent had passed an order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2012-2013 against the Petitioner. The Petitioner received a copy of the order on 01.05.2018 and was entitled to prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The Appellate Authority could condone the delay for an additional 30 days if a sufficient cause was shown. However, the Petitioner did not file an appeal within the statutory period but instead filed a Writ Petition challenging the order on 10.07.2018, which was beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, emphasized that the High Court, in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by a Statutory Authority that was not appealed against within the maximum limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Due to this legal position, the High Court could not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy in the present matter. Issue 3: Precedent set by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited The judgment in the case cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court established a precedent that Writ Petitions should not be entertained by the High Court if the order passed by a Statutory Authority was not appealed against within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Following this precedent, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner as it could not be entertained, and subsequently closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limitations on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
|
