Court dismisses writ petitions challenging TNVAT assessment orders for lack of procedural compliance and justifications.

The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The court emphasized the petitioner's failure to provide satisfactory explanations for not objecting to the pre-assessment notice and not pursuing appellate remedies. Despite the petitioner's arguments, the court ruled that without proper justifications for these lapses, the petitions could not be entertained. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and effectively defending legal proceedings. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed not maintainable, with the petitioner advised to explore available remedies under the law.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to assessment orders under TNVAT Act for 2012-2013 and 2014-2015; Failure to give objections to pre-assessment notice; Failure to pursue appellate remedies; Lack of proper explanation for actions.

In this judgment by the High Court of Madras, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The court highlighted two crucial issues that the petitioner needed to address. Firstly, the petitioner was required to provide a valid explanation for not raising objections to the pre-assessment notice issued on 03.11.2015. Secondly, the petitioner was expected to clarify why they did not pursue appellate remedies against the impugned orders issued on 08.12.2015. The court emphasized the importance of these procedural steps in legal proceedings.

The court noted that neither the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions nor the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel provided a satisfactory explanation for the petitioner's actions. The lack of a proper explanation regarding the failure to follow procedural requirements was considered sufficient grounds to dismiss the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders. The court stressed the significance of adhering to procedural rules and defending proceedings effectively to maintain the validity of legal challenges.

Despite the petitioner's argument that the same turnover was considered in both assessment orders, the court declined to delve into the merits of the contentions raised due to the absence of a proper explanation for the petitioner's failure to defend the proceedings adequately. Consequently, the court ruled that it could not entertain the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements and pursuing available remedies under the Act. As a result, the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, with the petitioner advised to explore the remedies provided by the law.

---