Court dismisses writ petitions challenging tax appeal orders, citing failure to exhaust remedies and statutory limitations.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging appeal orders for tax and penalty, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to utilize alternative remedies and statutory limitations. The court held that the petitioner's lack of appearance and failure to appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal precluded claiming a lack of opportunity. Emphasizing the need to adhere to statutory limitations and pursue effective remedies, the court found the petitioner ineligible to invoke Article 226 relief. Due to delays and failure to establish entitlement to extraordinary remedy, the court dismissed the petitions without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, Invocation of extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Failure to establish entitlement to invoke extraordinary remedy, Statutory limitation and alternative remedies.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking to quash appeal orders passed by the first respondent and to direct a personal hearing opportunity. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner passed an order demanding tax and penalty for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The petitioner challenged this order, alleging violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner noted the petitioner's failure to appear on numerous occasions, ultimately dismissing the appeal after giving ample opportunities. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim a lack of opportunity, as it would be an abuse of judicial proceedings. The petitioner failed to utilize the remedy of filing an appeal to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The court refused to delve into the merits of the case, emphasizing the need to pursue effective alternative remedies provided by law. Citing the decision in State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd, the court highlighted that the petitioner's case did not meet the criteria for invoking Article 226. The petitioner's attempt to overcome procedural lapses through the writ petition was deemed insufficient.

Regarding statutory limitations, the court referred to the decision in Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Customs, emphasizing the binding nature of statutory limitations. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations, as emphasized in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the delay, lack of bona fides, and failure to establish entitlement to extraordinary remedy disentitled the petitioner from relief. The court found no reason to entertain the petitions and dismissed them along with the connected miscellaneous petitions, without costs.

---