Statutory appeal and reasonable opportunity principle limit writ interference in Tamil Nadu VAT revised assessments

Under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, a revised assessment is not vitiated merely because a personal hearing was not separately fixed where the statute requires only a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The article notes that personal hearing is not mandatory under the proviso to Section 27(1) and Section 27(2), and that the assessee had been given two opportunities which were not availed. It further explains that, where an effective statutory appeal under Section 51 is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised in tax matters, especially when the dispute is largely factual. The petitioner is instead left to pursue the appellate remedy, with liberty to seek exclusion of writ-period delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were vitiated for want of personal hearing. (ii) Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the availability of the statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were vitiated for want of personal hearing.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 27(1) and Section 27(2) requires only a reasonable opportunity to show cause before passing an order. Personal hearing is not made statutorily imperative under that proviso, though the assessing authority may grant it in an appropriate case. On the facts, an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded twice, but it was not availed. The request that the authority should have fixed a date and time was not made in the replies and was raised only later in the writ affidavits.

Conclusion: The challenge based on denial of personal hearing fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the availability of the statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The dispute turned largely on facts, and an effective statutory appeal was available. In tax matters, the rule of alternate remedy applies with greater rigour, and writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked when the statutory appellate mechanism is adequate. The Court also preserved the petitioner's ability to seek exclusion of the period spent in writ proceedings for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, while leaving the appellate authority free to decide all issues on merits, including personal hearing.

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

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were left undisturbed at the writ stage, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the available statutory appeals with liberty to seek appropriate reliefs before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where a statutory appellate remedy is available and an opportunity to show cause has been afforded, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised, and a grievance of personal hearing will not vitiate the order unless the statutory requirement of opportunity is breached.

---