Rectification remedy and writ restraint: pending tax correction request justified no Article 226 interference, with hearing directed.

A writ challenge to an assessment-related order was declined because the petitioner had already invoked the rectification remedy under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and that application was pending. The Court held that setting aside the order in writ proceedings on the same ground would render the rectification process infructuous, and it found the impugned order to be a detailed order not warranting interference under Article 226. It nevertheless directed the authority to dispose of the pending representation and rectification application after granting personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment-related order should be entertained when the petitioner had already invoked the rectification remedy under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and whether interference was warranted on the ground of absence of personal hearing.

Analysis: The petitioner had chosen to pursue rectification of the impugned order under Section 84, and that application was stated to be pending. The Court found that if the impugned order were set aside in the writ proceedings on the same ground, the pending rectification application would become infructuous. On the record, the Court also found that the impugned order was a detailed order and did not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the Court considered it appropriate to direct disposal of the pending representation together with the rectification application after granting personal hearing.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the impugned order was left undisturbed, with only a direction to the authority to dispose of the pending representation and rectification application after personal hearing.

---