Writ jurisdiction cannot replace an expired statutory appeal where the maximum limitation period has already lapsed.

A writ petition under Article 226 is not ordinarily entertainable against an assessment order where the assessee has allowed the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 to lapse beyond the maximum permissible filing period, including the limited condonation period. The text states that once the appellate remedy has expired, writ jurisdiction should not be used to challenge the statutory order in place of the unavailable appeal. The operative effect is that exhaustion of the appeal remedy within the prescribed outer limit remains a precondition for seeking further challenge through writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained against an assessment order when the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not filed within the maximum permissible period of limitation.

Analysis: The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, with a prescribed period for filing and a further limited period for condonation of delay. No appeal was filed within that maximum period. The Court relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to challenge an order of a statutory authority when the available appellate remedy has been allowed to lapse beyond the maximum limitation period.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and was dismissed.

---