Statutory revision remedy and limitation barred writ review of a compounding fee order after finality attached.

A writ petition challenging a compounding fee order was held not maintainable because the statutory revision remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had not been pursued within the prescribed time, and only a limited extension was available on sufficient cause. Once that order attained finality through non-challenge within the maximum permissible period, the High Court declined to examine the merits under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, applying the settled restraint against bypassing the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order fixing compounding fee was maintainable when the statutory revision remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not pursued within the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: The order fixing the compounding fee was appealable by way of revision under Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 within the stipulated period, with a limited extension available on sufficient cause. The petitioner did not invoke that statutory remedy within the maximum permissible time and instead approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the finality attained by the unchallenged order and the settled restraint on entertaining writ petitions against such orders, the Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute.

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

---