Alternative statutory remedy and natural justice challenge fail where the VAT assessment was appealable and hearing was shown.

Where an assessment order under the VAT Act is appealable and the assessee allows the statutory limitation for appeal to expire, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass the alternative remedy, and the petition was rejected on that ground. The Court also found no substantiated denial of personal hearing or breach of natural justice: notice was issued, objections were filed, books were produced, and a hearing was held on the disputed turnovers. The plea of procedural unfairness was treated as an afterthought, and no grave illegality or error apparent on the face of the record was shown to justify certiorari. The assessment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the expiry of limitation under the VAT Act. (ii) Whether the assessment order was vitiated for denial of personal hearing or other violation of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the expiry of limitation under the VAT Act.

Analysis: The impugned assessment order was appealable under the VAT Act. The statutory scheme provided an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and further remedies under the Act. The petitioner did not avail the appeal within the prescribed period. The writ petition was filed after expiry of the limitation period, and the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked to bypass an effective alternative statutory remedy, particularly where the assessee has allowed the limitation for appeal to expire.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order was vitiated for denial of personal hearing or other violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The record showed issuance of notice, filing of objections, production of books of account, and a subsequent hearing at which the authorised representative was asked to explain the disputed turnovers. The petitioner's written communication admitted non-disclosure of raw-material purchases and requested assessment on an added incorporation value. In these circumstances, the plea that no personal hearing was afforded was rejected as an afterthought, and no grave procedural illegality or error apparent on the face of the record was made out to justify certiorari.

Conclusion: No denial of personal hearing or actionable breach of natural justice was established, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was upheld and the writ petition was rejected without costs because the statutory remedy was bypassed and no procedural infirmity warranting interference was proved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists and is allowed to lapse, the High Court will ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with an assessment order, absent a clear and substantiated jurisdictional or natural justice violation.

---