Binding precedent and statutory appeal remedy bar writ interference with constitutional challenge and VAT assessment orders.

A constitutional challenge to the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was not entertained because the same issue had already been rejected in an earlier binding decision of the High Court. The writ court also declined direct interference with assessment orders under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, since an effective statutory appeal lay before the competent appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to pursue that appellate remedy, including applications for condonation of delay and stay, which were to be considered within the time fixed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be entertained in the writ petition; (ii) Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment orders passed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be entertained in the writ petition.

Analysis: The challenge had already been considered and rejected in an earlier decision of the same Court. In view of that binding prior determination, no relief could be granted on the constitutional challenge raised in the present writ petition.

Conclusion: The challenge to the 101st Constitutional Amendment was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment orders passed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: As the impugned assessment orders were amenable to appeal before the competent appellate authority, the writ petition was not treated as the proper forum for direct interference. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal, along with applications for condonation of delay and stay, and the appellate authority was directed to consider them within the time fixed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed on the constitutional challenge and was disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the available appellate remedy against the assessment orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a constitutional challenge has already been rejected in an earlier binding decision and an effective statutory appeal remedy exists against the assessment orders, the writ court may decline substantive interference and direct recourse to the appellate mechanism.

---