Alternate remedy and personal hearing under VAT law: writ petitions rejected, with appeal left open.

Under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, a requirement to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause was treated as distinct from a statutory mandate of personal hearing; the Court held that personal hearing was not compulsory, and no defect arose on that ground, especially since a hearing notice had been issued but not answered. On maintainability, the Court applied the alternate remedy rule more strictly in a fiscal statute and held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where an effective statutory appeal under Section 51 was available. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable, and the assessee was relegated to the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a personal hearing was statutorily mandatory before passing revisional or reassessment orders under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. (ii) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the available statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue (i): Whether a personal hearing was statutorily mandatory before passing revisional or reassessment orders under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 27 requires only a reasonable opportunity to show cause. That phrase was treated as distinct from a statutory requirement of a personal hearing. The Court also noted that, in the case at hand, a personal hearing notice had in fact been issued, but the dealer did not respond.

Conclusion: Personal hearing was not statutorily mandatory under Section 27, and no infirmity arose on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the available statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The Court applied the alternate remedy rule with greater rigour in a fiscal statute. It held that none of the recognised exceptions to non-interference in writ jurisdiction was shown, and that the questions raised, including mismatch and factual examination, could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority.

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

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned reassessment orders was rejected in writ jurisdiction, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory appeal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters arising under a fiscal statute, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory appeal is available, and a requirement of a reasonable opportunity to show cause does not by itself make a personal hearing mandatory.

---