Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of disputed tax assessment errors under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework

Under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, writ jurisdiction was held to be inappropriate where an efficacious statutory remedy existed and the challenge concerned deemed assessments and rectification petitions under Section 84. The court reiterated that disputed questions about an alleged clerical mistake and claimed lack of jurisdiction require factual examination and should be pursued before the statutory authorities. It also noted that the rectification authority had already considered the claim and found no apparent mistake in the returns or audit form. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, on the plea that the assessment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record and lack of jurisdiction to levy tax.

Analysis: The dispute arose from rectification petitions under Section 84 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 challenging deemed assessments. The Court reiterated that when a taxing statute provides a complete hierarchy of remedies, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked. It found that the contention of clerical mistake and alleged jurisdictional defect involved disputed questions requiring factual examination, and that such matters could be raised before the statutory authorities. The Court also noted that the rectification authority had already considered the claim and held that the alleged mistake was not apparent from the returns or the audit form.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the challenge to the assessment and rectification orders could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists under a taxing enactment, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition to test disputed questions of fact or alleged jurisdictional errors unless a recognised exception to the rule of alternative remedy is made out.

---