9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 377 - HC - VAT and Sales Taxlimitation period - Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Held that - The learned counsel for the petitioner made a plea that because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, the limitation period to move the Appellate Authority expired and therefore, he requests time and prayed that the period of pendency of the Writ Petition may be excluded for the purpose of limitation to prefer the appeal before the appellate authority. Considering the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal, if the same is in order, and dispose of the appeal, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. However, the period of pendency of this Writ Petition from 23.02.2011 upto the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner, shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation - Further, the petitioner-Company shall work out their remedy for contesting the delay, if any, for the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed as per law - The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Issues: Challenge to assessment order due to delay, maintainability of writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy, exclusion of pendency period for limitation to prefer appeal.
Analysis: 1. Challenge to assessment order due to delay: The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the respondent regarding Assessment No. CST No. 582558 for the assessment year 1996-1997, citing delay as a primary issue. The petitioner contended that the order was passed late, prompting them to file a writ petition directly with the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory appellate process. 2. Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy: The High Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioner without first availing the statutory remedy of appealing to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes III. The court emphasized that unless there is a violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or ultra vires provisions of the relevant Act/Rule, interference by the Writ Court is not warranted when an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available under the statute. 3. Exclusion of pendency period for limitation to prefer appeal: The petitioner requested the exclusion of the period during which the writ petition was pending from the limitation period for preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The court, considering this plea, disposed of the writ petition with liberty for the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the court order. The court directed that the Appellate Authority should entertain the appeal if found in order, and the period of pendency of the writ petition would be excluded for the purpose of limitation calculation. In conclusion, the High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The court allowed the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority within a specified period, with the pendency period of the writ petition being excluded for limitation purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and provided a clear direction for the petitioner to pursue their case through the appropriate appellate channel.
|
