2018 (9) TMI 889 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal available - Revision of assessment - assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 - case of petitioner is that the impugned order is non-speaking and the authorities, who passed the orders had not applied his mind in respect of the objections raised by the writ petitioner - Held that - This court is of an opinion that against the revision order passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006, there is an appeal under Section 51 of the said Act. The writ petitioner has to exhaust the appeal remedy provided under the provisions of the TNVAT Act . This Court is of a strong opinion that institutional respects are to be maintained by the constitutional Courts also. Whenever there is a provision of appeal under the statute, without exhausting the remedies available under the statute, no writ petition can be entertained in a routine manner. Only on exceptional circumstances, the remedy of appeal can be waived, if there is a gross injustice or if there is a violation of fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner is at liberty to submit an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the TNVAT Act and in the event of submitting an appeal, the Appellate Authority has to adjudicate the same on merits and in accordance with law - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revision of assessment orders for multiple assessment years under TNVAT Act, Non-consideration of relevant documents, Lack of proper application of mind by authorities, Rejection of objections without independent reasons, Violation of principles of natural justice, Failure to furnish required documents, Implementation of guidelines in light of GST, Availability of appeal remedy under TNVAT Act, Entertaining writ petition without exhausting alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed the challenge to revision of assessment orders for various assessment years under the TNVAT Act in the writ petitions. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities did not consider the application seeking relevant documents, and the impugned orders lacked proper application of mind, being non-speaking and not addressing objections raised. The petitioner's grievances included the rejection of objections without independent reasons and failure to provide requested documents before passing the orders, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent's counsel argued that certain guidelines issued previously were irrelevant due to the implementation of GST, leading to a pending review petition. The Court held that an appeal remedy existed under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, emphasizing the need to exhaust such remedies before seeking writ relief.

The Court cited precedents emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226. It highlighted that the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy usually precludes the maintainability of a writ petition. Exceptions to this rule include instances where the statutory authority acted against the provisions of the law or principles of natural justice. The Court underscored the discretionary nature of the writ remedy, to be invoked sparingly in exceptional circumstances. It stressed the respect for institutional processes and the necessity to uphold appeal provisions unless there is a clear case of gross injustice or fundamental rights violation.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed all writ petitions, directing the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy under the TNVAT Act. It emphasized that the appeal authority must adjudicate on the merits and in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The Registry was instructed to return the original impugned order to the petitioner's counsel, concluding the judgment.