2020 (12) TMI 906 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction holding that It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that the contentions raised in this Writ Petition could not be agitated in the appeal before the Appellate Authority - Viewed from that perspective, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in this case, touching upon disputed questions of fact for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under TNVAT Act for the year 2014-2015. Failure to prefer appeal before Appellate Authority. Jurisdiction under Article 226 bypassing statutory remedies.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Writ Petition challenging an order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the year 2014-2015. The Petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the prescribed period. The court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was highlighted that statutory remedies should be exhausted unless they are inadequate for extraordinary situations involving the vires of the statute or intertwined public and private wrongs necessitating immediate action.

The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case due to the failure of the Petitioner to utilize the available statutory remedy. The judgment underscored that matters concerning revenue with statutory remedies should be pursued diligently, and the practice of using Article 226 solely for interim orders and delay tactics needs to be discouraged. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as it could not be entertained, with no costs imposed on either party.