Statutory appellate limitation limits writ review, but separate rectification remedy may still remain available in law.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to challenge an assessment order when the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was not filed within the maximum permissible limitation period. The article notes that the appeal lay within 30 days, with only a further 30 days available on sufficient cause, and a writ filed beyond that period would generally not be entertained on the merits. It also clarifies that the separate remedy of rectification, if otherwise available in law, remains open under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained against an assessment order when the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not filed within the maximum permissible period of limitation, and whether the petitioner could still seek rectification under the said Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 within 30 days of receipt of the order, with a further condonable period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown. The writ petition was filed well beyond that maximum period. In view of the principle that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked to assail an order not challenged within the prescribed appellate limitation, the Court declined to examine the merits. The Court, however, clarified that this would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing rectification, if otherwise available, under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of failure to pursue the statutory appeal within the permissible limitation period, and the challenge to the assessment order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decision reinforces the primacy of the statutory appellate remedy and the limited scope for invoking writ jurisdiction against an unchallenged assessment order, while preserving the separate remedy of rectification if available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass a statutory appellate remedy that was not pursued within the maximum period of limitation, unless exceptional grounds are established.

---