Statutory appeal bars writ interference in tax assessments where sales classification and escaped turnover remain disputed facts

Writ intervention in fiscal assessment disputes is generally unwarranted where an effective statutory appeal is available. The Madras High Court noted that the classification of inter-State sales under section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the question whether turnover could be revisited under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, involved disputed facts requiring scrutiny of invoices and surrounding materials by the assessing and appellate authorities. It also noted that reopening was within the Assessing Authority's jurisdiction where turnover had allegedly escaped assessment, and that notice, reply and personal hearings satisfied natural justice. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable and the petitioner was left to the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders were maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice justified interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the impugned inter-State sales fell under section 3(a) or section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether the turnover could be revisited under section 27 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court held that this was a disputed question of fact requiring examination of invoices and surrounding materials, which lay within the domain of the assessing and appellate authorities. It found that the Assessing Authority had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment where turnover was alleged to have escaped assessment and that the notice, reply, and personal hearings afforded adequate opportunity, so no breach of natural justice was made out. In fiscal matters, the existence of an effective statutory appeal weighed against invoking writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---