Court emphasizes statutory remedies over writ jurisdiction for TNVAT Act refund petitions, directs revision application.

The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking refund and interest under the TNVAT Act, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction in fiscal matters. The court directed the petitioner to pursue an alternate remedy by filing a revision application to the first respondent, highlighting the availability of condonation of delay and exclusion of time spent in the writ petition as per the Limitation Act. The court clarified the jurisdictional authority issue and upheld the impugned orders passed post-remand, preserving the petitioner's right to seek revision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refund and interest on refund under Section 42(5) of TNVAT Act and Rule 11(2) of TNVAT Rules.
2. Jurisdictional authority in passing the impugned orders.
3. Availability and necessity of alternate remedy under Section 54 of TNVAT Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund and Interest on Refund:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and export of Hosiery garments, sought a refund and interest on the refund under Section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (TNVAT Rules) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The petitioner complained of inaction by the respondents, leading to an earlier writ petition (W.P.No.27857 of 2017) which resulted in an order directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation. The first respondent remanded the matter to the third respondent, who then passed the impugned orders. The court noted that the refund issue had been resolved, and only the interest aspect remained. Section 42(5) of the TNVAT Act provides substantive law on the matter, while Rule 11(2) of the TNVAT Rules deals with procedural aspects, including the verification of Form W. The court found that Rule 11 had been considered in the impugned orders.

2. Jurisdictional Authority:
The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were invalid as they were passed by the third respondent, whereas the earlier court order directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation. The court clarified that the first respondent had considered the representation and afforded a personal hearing before remanding the matter to the third respondent. Thus, the court held that the first ground urged by the petitioner did not carry any weight.

3. Availability and Necessity of Alternate Remedy:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of a revisional application to the first respondent under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act. The court emphasized the rule of alternate remedy, particularly in fiscal matters, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Satyawati Tondon and K.C. Mathew cases. The court noted that the impugned orders were passed post-remand and gave a fresh cause of action, thus the petitioner could not claim that a revision would not lie to the first respondent. The court also highlighted that the matter involved factual determinations and examination of records, which are not suitable for resolution in a writ petition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to seek alternate remedy by filing a revision application under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act, with the possibility of seeking condonation of delay and exclusion of time spent in the writ petition as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, with the court preserving the petitioner’s right to avail the alternate remedy by way of revision to the revisional authority (first respondent). The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, particularly in fiscal matters.

---