Statutory appellate remedy must be exhausted before writ jurisdiction is invoked against VAT assessment orders.

Writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were held not maintainable where the statutory appellate remedy had not been exhausted. The layered scheme of appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and then the High Court was treated as the normal route, with writ jurisdiction confined to exceptional cases such as gross injustice or clear violation of fundamental rights. Questions described as jurisdictional errors or erroneous application of the amended provision were also treated as matters the appellate authorities could examine on the original records. The petitioners were directed to pursue the remedy under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides a layered appellate framework, including appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and subsequent remedy before the High Court. The availability of such remedies is the rule, and recourse to writ jurisdiction is an exception to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances such as gross injustice or a clear violation of fundamental rights. The Court held that even questions described as jurisdictional errors or erroneous application of the amended provision can be examined by the appellate authorities, which are empowered to consider legal and factual issues on the basis of the original records. The Court also emphasised that the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, should not undertake adjudication of disputed facts or bypass the statutory mechanism created for redressal.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable without first pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, and the petitioners were directed to avail the remedy under the Act.

---