Statutory appeal remedy prevails when revised assessment orders are appealable; writ court leaves delay to the appellate authority.

Where a revised assessment order is appealable under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the writ court may decline to examine the assessment merits and direct the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal remedy. The Madras High Court noted that the petitioner had chosen to avail the appellate forum, so the writ petitions were not pursued on merits. It further left any issue of delay in filing the appeal to the Appellate Authority, to be considered on its own merits and within the statutory limits for condonation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the revised assessment orders should be entertained when the petitioner sought to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006; (ii) Whether the question of delay in filing the appeals should be left to the Appellate Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the revised assessment orders should be entertained when the petitioner sought to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The impugned revised assessment orders were amenable to appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner expressed an intention to avail the statutory appellate remedy, and the Court noted that no leave was required for doing so. In view of the availability of the appellate forum, the writ petitions were not pursued on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of delay in filing the appeals should be left to the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: Under Section 51(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, an appeal must be filed within the prescribed period, with a limited scope for condonation of delay. As the petitioner could not specify the date of service of the impugned orders, the Court directed that any application for condonation of delay should be considered by the Appellate Authority on its own merits and within the statutory limits.

Conclusion: The issue of delay, if raised, was left to be decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not adjudicated on the assessment merits and the petitioner was directed to work out the challenge before the appellate forum, with delay-related questions to be decided there.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, the writ court may decline to examine the merits and leave incidental questions such as limitation and condonation to the appellate authority within the bounds of the governing statute.

---