TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenging assessment order without exhausting appeal rights not maintainable. Follow statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.</h1> <h3>M/s. Greenland Exports (P) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> M/s. Greenland Exports (P) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) - TMI, [2013] 65 VST 69 (Mad) Issues: Challenge to assessment order due to delay, maintainability of writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy, exclusion of pendency period for limitation to prefer appeal.Analysis:1. Challenge to assessment order due to delay: The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the respondent regarding Assessment No. CST No. 582558 for the assessment year 1996-1997, citing delay as a primary issue. The petitioner contended that the order was passed late, prompting them to file a writ petition directly with the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory appellate process.2. Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy: The High Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioner without first availing the statutory remedy of appealing to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes III. The court emphasized that unless there is a violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or ultra vires provisions of the relevant Act/Rule, interference by the Writ Court is not warranted when an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available under the statute.3. Exclusion of pendency period for limitation to prefer appeal: The petitioner requested the exclusion of the period during which the writ petition was pending from the limitation period for preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The court, considering this plea, disposed of the writ petition with liberty for the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the court order. The court directed that the Appellate Authority should entertain the appeal if found in order, and the period of pendency of the writ petition would be excluded for the purpose of limitation calculation.In conclusion, the High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The court allowed the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority within a specified period, with the pendency period of the writ petition being excluded for limitation purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and provided a clear direction for the petitioner to pursue their case through the appropriate appellate channel.
TaxTMI 