Writ interference limits in penalty challenges: merits already decided, statutory remedies could not reopen the dispute.

In a challenge to a penalty order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the HC held that writ interference was not warranted where the petition was not confined to a pure jurisdictional objection and the single Judge had already examined the merits. The court noted that objections based on penalty being computed from income-tax returns, the effect of compounding, the alleged finality of acceptance of compounding, and the power to estimate under Section 67 had all been considered and answered. The appellant could not then seek relegation to statutory remedies to reopen issues already decided. The refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the penalty order under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge raised in the writ petition was not confined to a pure jurisdictional objection. The contentions had been specifically dealt with on merits by the single Judge, including the objections based on levy of penalty on the basis of income-tax returns, the effect of compounding, the alleged contractual finality of acceptance of compounding, and the power to resort to estimation while acting under Section 67. Once those contentions had been examined and answered, it was not open to the appellant to seek relegation to statutory remedies in order to unsettle the judgment already rendered on those issues.

Conclusion: The challenge to the writ court's refusal to interfere failed, and the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained.

---