Challenged tax assessment dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies. Court emphasizes importance of following appeal process.

The Writ Petition challenging an assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was dismissed by the Court due to the Petitioner's failure to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority as required by the statute. The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to writ petitions, citing the legal position established by the Supreme Court of India. As the Petitioner did not avail of the prescribed appeal process within the specified timeframe, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition, resulting in its dismissal without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a case where the Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Respondent assessing their liability under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Respondent had assessed the Petitioner's liability for the year 2014-15, and the Petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal against that order under Section 51 of the Act within 30 days. However, the Petitioner did not avail of this statutory remedy and instead filed a Writ Petition challenging the order. The Court noted that there was no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not resorting to the alternative remedy provided under the statute. The judgment cited the legal position explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise -vs- Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 1 SCC 260], emphasizing that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. The Court highlighted that statutory remedies should be preferred unless extraordinary situations exist, such as when the vires of the statute are in question or public wrongs are involved. The judgment also criticized the practice of filing petitions under Article 226 solely for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings.

The Court, based on the legal position cited, refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the controversy in the matter. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed as it could not be entertained due to the failure of the Petitioner to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under the statute. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.

---