2020 (12) TMI 690 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of three months 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. This Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. At the same time, it is made clear that the Petitioner shall not be precluded from working out its rights for rectification of the impugned order by proceedings under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, if it is otherwise entitled, in accordance with law and that no view has been expressed by this Court on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner in that regard - the Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing appeal under TNVAT Act
2. Entertaining Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
3. Scope of High Court's jurisdiction in matters not appealed before Appellate Authority
4. Right to seek rectification under Section 84 of TNVAT Act

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the issue of the timeliness of filing an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The Respondent had passed an order against the Petitioner, who received the copy of the order on 31.05.2017. The Petitioner, however, did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Instead, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order on 20.11.2018, which was beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days. The Court noted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals under the TNVAT Act.

2. The judgment also discusses the issue of entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the order passed by a Statutory Authority was not appealed against within the maximum limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a related matter, the Court emphasized that in such cases, the High Court should refrain from delving into the merits of the controversy. The Court clarified that the Petitioner could explore the option of seeking rectification of the impugned order through proceedings under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act.

3. The Court further elaborated on the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in matters not appealed before the Appellate Authority. It highlighted that the High Court, in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain Writ Petitions challenging orders that were not appealed within the prescribed time frame. The judgment underscored the importance of following the statutory procedures and exhausting available remedies before approaching the High Court for relief.

4. Lastly, the judgment addressed the Petitioner's right to seek rectification under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. The Court clarified that while dismissing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner was not precluded from pursuing rectification of the impugned order through the appropriate legal channels if entitled to do so. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner in that regard. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.