2020 (12) TMI 879 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy of petition was available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed these Writ Petitions 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 - 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. 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.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to orders passed under TNVAT Act beyond the limitation period.
- Entertaining a Writ Petition when no appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the challenge to orders passed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) beyond the limitation period. The Respondent had passed orders for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, which the Petitioner received on 27.07.2018. The Petitioner could have appealed against these orders within 30 days from the date of receipt under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. However, the Petitioner did not file an appeal within the stipulated time but instead filed Writ Petitions on 29.10.2018, which was beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receiving the order.

2. The judgment refers to a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, where it was emphasized that the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by a Statutory Authority if no appeal was filed within the maximum limitation period before the Appellate Authority. In line with this legal position, the High Court in the present case found it untenable to express any opinion on the merits of the controversy due to the failure of the Petitioner to adhere to the statutory appeal procedure.

3. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions as they could not be entertained under the circumstances. The judgment also ordered the closure of the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedures in challenging orders passed by Statutory Authorities, emphasizing the significance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.