Appellant's Natural Justice Argument Dismissed by Court: Emphasizes Discretionary Rule

The Appellant's contentions regarding the alleged violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who preserved the right to avail alternate remedy by filing an appeal. The Court upheld the decision, stating that the Appellate Authority could address issues of natural justice and the Circular's binding nature. Merely alleging a breach of natural justice does not automatically entitle a Writ Petition against an appealable order to be entertained under the Constitution. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of the Rule of alternative remedy, supporting the relegation of the Petitioner/Assessee to the first Appellate Authority.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
2. Challenge regarding the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
3. Relegation of the Petitioner/Assessee to avail the regular remedy before the first Appellate Authority.
4. Interpretation of the Rule regarding alternate remedy in the context of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction.

Issue 1: Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order:
The Appellant contended that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Assessee/Appellant, preserving the right to avail alternate remedy by filing an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. The Appellant argued that despite a Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai to grant an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed in breach of natural justice. The Appellate Authority requires a pre-deposit for filing an appeal, making the appeal remedy onerous.

Issue 2: Challenge regarding the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes:
The Appellant raised concerns about the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, emphasizing the importance of granting an opportunity of hearing. However, despite this Circular, the Appellant alleged a breach of natural justice in the passing of the impugned order. The Appellant argued that this aspect was not adequately considered by the learned Single Judge, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Issue 3: Relegation of the Petitioner/Assessee to avail the regular remedy before the first Appellate Authority:
The Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, opined that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, relegating the Petitioner/Assessee to avail the regular remedy before the first Appellate Authority, did not warrant interference in the intra-court Appeal. The Court highlighted that the alleged grounds concerning breach of principles of natural justice and the binding nature of the Commissioner's Circular could be raised before the Appellate Authority, which had the power to address these issues and even remand the case back to the Assessing Authority.

Issue 4: Interpretation of the Rule regarding alternate remedy in the context of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction:
The Court clarified that merely alleging a breach of principles of natural justice does not automatically entitle a Writ Petition against an appealable order to be entertained under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the Statute provides alternative and effective remedies for Assessees aggrieved by orders passed by the Assessing Authority. The Rule of alternative remedy is a discretionary principle for the Writ Court, not a jurisdictional bar. The Court concluded that the learned Single Judge did not err in relegating the Petitioner/Assessee to the first Appellate Authority, as the Rule of alternative remedy should be applied judiciously and exceptionally.

---

---