Reasonable opportunity of hearing and alternative statutory remedy barred writ interference in a pending VAT assessment challenge.

In a pending tax assessment under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, a separate fresh notice was not required where the assessee had already received repeated hearing opportunities, notices, appearances and adjournments; the statutory requirement was a reasonable opportunity of hearing, not an additional notice in those facts, so the assessment was not vitiated by natural justice concerns. The Court also reiterated that where the Act provides an efficacious appellate, revisional and review framework, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to bypass that remedy absent exceptional circumstances, so the writ petitions were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment order was vitiated for want of a fresh notice and violation of the principles of natural justice under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005; (ii) whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): whether the assessment order was vitiated for want of a fresh notice and violation of the principles of natural justice under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The assessment proceeded in the course of regular assessment after the self-assessment was not accepted. The record showed multiple opportunities of hearing, issuance of notices, appearance on several dates, and adjournments sought by the assessee. The Court held that Section 35(7) required recording of reasons and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, but did not mandate a separate fresh notice where the proceeding was a continuation of the pending assessment. The same approach was applied to Section 40(2), which also required opportunity of hearing and not a further notice in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment was not vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The Act provided a complete hierarchy of remedies by appeal, revision, and review. In fiscal matters, where an effective statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked to bypass that machinery. No exceptional circumstance was shown to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment failed, and the assessee was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: In a pending tax assessment, a further notice is not necessary where the statute requires only a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the assessee has in fact been afforded repeated opportunities; where an efficacious statutory appeal exists, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass the prescribed remedy.

---