2020 (2) TMI 1624 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Dismissed Petition Upheld: Writ Jurisdiction Limited in Fiscal Matters

The Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - HELD THAT:- There is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, if at all can be established by the Assessee, the Assessee can very well file an appeal under Section 51 of the Act besides raising the grounds on the merits of the case. Therefore, it does not entitle the Assessee / Appellant to resort to writ jurisdiction invariably in all circumstances for the alleged breach of principles of natural justice. The Writ Appeal is disposed of by relegating the matter back to the appellate authority - in the present case the appellant could avail the effective alternative remedy - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Dismissal of writ petition based on the availability of alternative remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006.2. Allegation of breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.Analysis:1. The writ appeal challenged the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition due to the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 51 of the Act. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of the rule of alternate remedy, citing the Dunlop India case to highlight that Article 226 is not intended to bypass statutory procedures unless in exceptional circumstances. The judgment reiterated that matters involving revenue and where statutory remedies are available are not suitable for writ jurisdiction, aiming to discourage the misuse of Article 226 for interim orders. The Single Judge's order was upheld, preserving the Assessee's right to pursue the statutory appeal, and all questions were left open for consideration by the appellate authority.2. The Assessee contended a breach of principles of natural justice in the impugned order. However, after hearing both parties, the Court found no error in the Single Judge's decision. Even if a breach of natural justice were established, the Assessee could address it through an appeal under Section 51, along with raising merits of the case. The Court clarified that alleged breaches of natural justice do not automatically entitle the Assessee to resort to writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the availability of an effective alternative remedy. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ appeal by remanding the matter to the appellate authority, allowing the Assessee to file an appeal within four weeks without objections on limitation, subject to meeting other conditions, for a lawful decision. The original assessment order was to be returned to the Assessee's counsel, and no costs were awarded in the case.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the dismissal of the writ petition based on the availability of an alternative remedy under the statute, emphasizing the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in fiscal matters. It also clarified the Assessee's recourse in case of alleged breaches of natural justice, highlighting the importance of following statutory procedures and discouraging misuse of writ petitions for interim relief.