Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy: belated challenge to assessment and recovery was not entertained due to laches.

A writ challenge to a revised assessment and consequential recovery notice was treated as barred by unexplained delay and laches, because the petitioner approached the court more than two years after service of the assessment order and only after distraint proceedings commenced. The court also relied on the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which had not been pursued. Complaints of non-consideration of objections and denial of personal hearing were viewed as issues that could be raised in appeal rather than exceptional grounds for writ interference at such a belated stage. No interference with the assessment or recovery proceedings was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the revised assessment and consequential recovery notice was liable to be entertained despite the belated approach, the availability of a statutory appeal, and the complaints of non-consideration of objections and denial of personal hearing.

Analysis: The challenge was brought more than two years after service of the revised assessment order, and the petitioner approached the Court only after receipt of the distraint notice. The Court held that the earlier single-judge orders relied on by the petitioner were fact-specific and distinguishable, as those cases did not involve comparable delay or laches. The impugned order itself disclosed the availability of an appeal, and an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was available but not pursued. The complaints regarding non-consideration of documents and absence of personal hearing were treated as matters that could at best be raised in appeal, not as exceptional grounds warranting interference in writ jurisdiction at such a belated stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on account of laches and availability of alternate remedy, and no interference was called for with the assessment or recovery proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy is available, unexplained delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction ordinarily bar interference, and complaints relating to consideration of objections or personal hearing should be pursued in appeal unless exceptional circumstances are shown.

---