2016 (6) TMI 655 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order based on the notice sent the residential address of the Director of the Assessee Company - alternative appellate remedy - notice sent to the registered place of business viz., No.B.23/24 City Centre, No.232, Purasawakkam High Road, Chennai 10 had been returned with the postal acknowledgement Left , for the reason that the appellant/assessee had closed down the business in the year 2011 - Held that - the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition, as not maintainable. - The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the appellant to file an appeal, if so advised. No costs. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order dated 13/3/2015.
2. Service of notice to the appellant.
3. Availability of an alternate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
The appellant sought to quash the assessment order dated 13/3/2015 for the year 2010-2011, contending that the assessment itself was erroneous due to the closure of business in 2011, resulting in no trading activity.

2. Service of Notice:
The appellant argued that the notice was sent to the registered business address, which had been closed, and was returned with the postal acknowledgment 'Left'. However, the notice was served on the residential address of the Director of the Assessee Company, which the writ Court found to be sufficient. The Court emphasized that it was the duty of the assessee to respond to the show cause notice, which the appellant failed to do.

3. Availability of an Alternate Remedy:
The Court held that the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides an alternate remedy for filing an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai Central, Chennai, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The Court reiterated that when an alternative remedy is available, writ petitions are not ordinarily entertained. This principle is supported by various Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882, and C.A. Ibrahim v. ITO, AIR 1961 SC 609, which emphasize the necessity to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:
The Court discussed the principles of law regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when an alternative remedy is available. Citing several Supreme Court cases, including U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another (2005) 8 SCC 264, and United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others {(2010) 8 SCC 110}, the Court underscored that the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy. Exceptions to this rule include violations of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, orders without jurisdiction, or challenges to the vires of a statute.

The Court concluded that the appellant should pursue the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the necessity to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The writ appeal was dismissed, and liberty was granted to the appellant to file an appeal within four weeks. The Registry was directed to return the original assessment order to the appellant's counsel after obtaining an attested copy.

← Previous Next →