2019 (7) TMI 1008 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time limitation of impugned order - TNVAT Act - the impugned order-I made and served on writ petitioner in June of 2017 has been assailed in the instant writ petition, which has been filed more than two years later i.e., in July of 2019 i.e., 01.07.2019 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the impugned order itself makes it clear that an appeal lies to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, but writ petitioner has not chosen to file a statutory appeal - There is no disputation before this Court that a statutory appeal lies to jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue, writ petitioner has gone into slumber after service of impugned order in the writ petition and has woken up only after the distraint notice was served on the writ petitioner on 15.04.2019 and has chosen to come to this Court on 1st July 2019 with the instant writ petition - There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the writ petitioner did not choose either to come to this Court or prefer a statutory appeal immediately after the receipt of the impugned order. It is now too late in the day to assail the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging a revised assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) made more than two years ago, failure to consider objections and provide a personal hearing before passing the impugned order, delay in filing the writ petition, relevance of case laws in similar matters, availability of alternate statutory appeal remedy, and the court's discretion to interfere in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order dated 05.06.2017, known as 'impugned order-I,' which was a revised assessment order under the TNVAT Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The writ petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, raised objections regarding the revisional notice, claiming that documents annexed to the reply were not considered, and argued that a personal hearing should have been granted before passing the impugned order.

The petitioner cited two main grounds for challenging the impugned order: non-consideration of documents filed in response to the revisional notice and the lack of a personal hearing. The petitioner referred to specific case laws to support their contentions, emphasizing the importance of these aspects in similar matters. However, the Revenue counsel argued that the petitioner's delay in filing the writ petition, more than two years after the impugned order, indicated an intention to delay recovery proceedings.

The court considered the arguments presented by both sides, analyzing the relevance of the case laws cited by the petitioner and the availability of an alternate statutory appeal remedy. It noted that the impugned order explicitly stated the option to appeal to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner within 30 days but observed that the petitioner had not pursued this remedy.

The court highlighted the importance of timely action in legal proceedings, emphasizing that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court or filing a statutory appeal weakened their case. Despite considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the court concluded that the grounds presented could be addressed through a statutory appeal rather than a writ petition. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of exceptional circumstances to warrant interference in the case.

In summary, the judgment emphasized the significance of timely legal actions, the availability of statutory appeal remedies, and the need for exceptional circumstances to justify court intervention in matters where alternate remedies exist. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition underscored the importance of procedural adherence and the limitations of seeking judicial intervention without sufficient cause.