Writ jurisdiction and statutory tax appeals: assessment challenge rejected where notice was issued and appellate remedy was available.

The Court declined interference with a revised assessment where the revisional notice had expressly proposed assessment and penalty, the dealer had responded, and the alleged opportunity defect was not made out. It further held that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked in tax matters when the TNVAT Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal, with questions such as pre-deposit, limitation, and condonation to be decided by the appellate authority. The assessment was left undisturbed, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned revised assessment order warranted interference on the ground that penalty was levied without proper notice and opportunity. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the TNVAT Act.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned revised assessment order warranted interference on the ground that penalty was levied without proper notice and opportunity.

Analysis: The revisional notice had expressly proposed assessment and penalty, and the dealer had responded to that notice. The assessment arose from discrepancies noticed between the monthly returns and the audited Form WW. The Court also noticed that, although the impugned order referred to penalty under one sub-section, the proposed action in the notice and the statutory power to levy penalty were both clear. In that background, the plea of absence of opportunity was not accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment on the ground of lack of opportunity and penalty irregularity was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the TNVAT Act.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory remedy is available, especially in tax matters. It noted that the assessment order itself provided for an appeal, that the appellate remedy was under the statute, and that issues such as pre-deposit, limitation, and condonation of delay were matters for the appellate authority to decide. The Court therefore treated the availability of the appeal as a strong reason against entertaining the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment was left undisturbed and the petitioner was directed to work out the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised, and a challenge to assessment on procedural grounds will not be entertained when notice and opportunity were already afforded under the statutory scheme.

---