2020 (12) TMI 1220 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Writ Petition Dismissed: Failure to File Revision Petition Timely Under TNVAT Act Leads to Finality of Order.

The HC dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the compounding fee order under the TNVAT Act due to the Petitioner's failure to file a Revision Petition ... Maintainability of petition - time limitation for filing revision petition lapsed - Petitioner did not prefer any Revision Petition before the authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Second Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. Since the order fixing the compounding fee in respect of the Petitioner for the year 2015-2016 has attained finality, the consequential notice dated 03.03.2017 for recovery of the amount due cannot be interdicted. Petition dismissed. Issues: Challenge of order under TNVAT Act for compounding fee beyond limitation period.The judgment pertains to a case where the Second Respondent passed an order fixing the compounding fee payable by the Petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Petitioner failed to prefer a Revision Petition against that order within the stipulated period of 30 days, as allowed under Section 57 of the TNVAT Act. Instead, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order after the expiration of the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The High Court referred to a decision by the Supreme Court of India in a similar matter, emphasizing that a Writ Petition should not be entertained if the order by a Statutory Authority was not appealed against within the prescribed period before the Appellate Authority. As the order fixing the compounding fee had attained finality, the High Court held that it could not intervene in the matter or express any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without costs.In this case, the main issue revolved around the challenge of an order passed by the Second Respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, regarding the compounding fee payable by the Petitioner for a specific year. The critical aspect was the failure of the Petitioner to file a Revision Petition within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, as provided under Section 57 of the TNVAT Act. The Petitioner instead opted to approach the High Court through a Writ Petition after the expiration of the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receiving the order. The High Court, guided by a Supreme Court decision, highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the principle that Writ Petitions should not be entertained if the prescribed appellate remedies have not been exhausted within the specified period.The judgment referenced a specific decision by the Supreme Court of India, which emphasized that in cases where orders by Statutory Authorities have not been appealed against within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority, Writ Petitions should not be entertained by the High Court. This principle was crucial in the present case, where the order fixing the compounding fee for the Petitioner had become final due to the failure to file a Revision Petition within the stipulated timeframe. As a result, the High Court concluded that it could not intervene in the matter or provide any opinion on the merits of the dispute. The dismissal of the Writ Petition and the closure of connected Miscellaneous Petitions without costs were the direct outcomes of this legal position, emphasizing the significance of adhering to statutory timelines and exhausting appellate remedies within the specified periods.