2020 (10) TMI 1233 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this 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 - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- 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. The Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against tax levy under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Entitlement to prefer appeal within the statutory limitation period.
3. Challenge to order beyond the maximum limitation period.
4. Applicability of High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Factual distinction in cases where appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a case where the Respondent levied tax under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 against the Petitioner for the year 2012-13. The Petitioner received the order but failed to prefer an appeal within the statutory period provided under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act.

2. The Petitioner approached the High Court through a Writ Petition challenging the order beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The court noted the statutory provision empowering the Appellate Authority to condone delay in filing an appeal for an extended period if sufficient cause is shown.

3. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the High Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it should not entertain Writ Petitions against orders not appealed within the statutory limitation period before the Appellate Authority. The court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the case due to this legal position.

4. The Petitioner's counsel argued for a factual distinction, suggesting that the binding decision should apply only when an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority but rejected as time-barred. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the legislative intent behind the limitation period should not be circumvented by directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 after the prescribed period has lapsed.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as it could not be entertained due to the Petitioner's failure to appeal within the statutory limitation period. The court highlighted that the rationale behind the limitation period in statutes should be respected, regardless of whether an appeal was made to the Appellate Authority before filing the Writ Petition. The judgment concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs.