2015 (12) TMI 1603 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses writ petition challenging assessment order, emphasizes exhaustion of statutory remedies.

Tvl. D. Savio Exports rep. by its Partner L. Stanley Motha, Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and The Assistant Commissioner-II, District

Tvl. D. Savio Exports rep. by its Partner L. Stanley Motha, Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Department of ... Issues:Challenge to assessment order based on violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order passed by the third respondent. The petitioner alleged a violation of principles of natural justice as they were not given a personal hearing. However, the assessment order clearly stated that the petitioner was informed through a notice to file objections within 15 days and to request a personal hearing if desired. The petitioner requested an extension until September but did not file any objections until the assessment order was passed on 30.09.2015. The petitioner's argument that the authority should have waited until the last day lacks merit as they did not submit objections even after two months from the requested extension. The court found no violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner failed to justify their delay in filing objections.In fiscal matters, it is established that the statutory remedy of appeal must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court cited various decisions to support this principle. The judge referred to a previous case where a similar writ petition was dismissed for not exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal. The court emphasized that the authority had given the petitioner a hearing opportunity, which was not utilized. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the competent authority, after providing a hearing opportunity, cannot be challenged under Article 226. The petitioner is required to raise all grounds before the appellate authority, which is responsible for fact-finding.Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. The petitioner was granted liberty to appear before the appellate authority within two weeks from the receipt of the order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.