Natural justice overrides alternate remedy where assessment is completed without documents, effective hearing, or proper consideration of objections.

The rule of alternate remedy is discretionary, not absolute, and does not bar writ jurisdiction where assessment proceedings are vitiated by breach of natural justice. Here, the assessee had sought documents, particulars and a personal hearing, but the assessment was completed without furnishing the requested material or properly considering that request. The HC held that the writ petitions were maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy and that the assessments could not stand because the objections were not effectively considered. The impugned assessment orders were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after supplying available documents or allowing inspection, inviting a fresh objection and granting a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ appeals were maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, in the face of alleged violation of natural justice; (ii) whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Issue (i): whether the writ appeals were maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, in the face of alleged violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the rule of alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar. It does not prevent recourse to writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is in breach of natural justice. The record showed that the assessee had sought specific documents, details and a personal hearing, and the reply dated 06.12.2013 was received by the authority. Yet the assessment was completed without furnishing the requested particulars and without properly considering the request for hearing. This constituted a substantive breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the statutory alternative remedy, and the finding of the writ court on maintainability could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Analysis: Since the assessment proceedings were vitiated by non-consideration of the assessee's objections and denial of effective opportunity, the assessments could not be sustained. The appropriate course was to quash the impugned assessments and remit the matter so that the assessee could be supplied available documents or allowed inspection, submit a fresh objection, and then receive a personal hearing before the assessment was redone in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after complying with natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional and procedural challenge, resulting in revival of the assessment process before the authority for a fresh decision after due opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternate statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the assessment is vitiated by a denial of natural justice, and such proceedings may be quashed with remand for fresh adjudication after giving a proper opportunity of hearing.

---