Alternate remedy rule in VAT reassessment: reasonable opportunity and available appeal bar writ interference absent natural justice breach.

Under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, reassessment under Section 27 was upheld where notices for personal hearing and objections showed reasonable opportunity, because personal hearing is not mandatory if a fair chance to respond is given. The alleged input tax credit mismatch was not a ground for interference where the reassessment records showed verification based on available records and departmental data. In fiscal matters, the alternate remedy rule applies with greater rigour, and where a statutory appeal under Section 51 is available, writ interference under Article 226 is not warranted absent a recognised exception such as a clear breach of natural justice. The challenge was therefore unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment orders under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were liable to be interfered with for alleged want of opportunity and failure to verify input tax credit mismatch, and whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the available statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The notices for personal hearing and calling for objections showed that reasonable opportunity had been afforded. Under the revision procedure in Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, personal hearing is not mandatory and a reasonable opportunity to show cause is sufficient. On the mismatch issue, the reassessment orders reflected verification on the basis of available records and departmental data, so it could not be said that no verification was undertaken. The Court also applied the settled rule of alternate remedy with greater rigour in fiscal matters and noted that the petitioner had a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In the absence of a demonstrated exception such as a clear breach of natural justice, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not warranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts and the impugned reassessment orders were not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax assessment orders failed, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised where reasonable opportunity has been afforded and an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists, unless a recognised exception to the alternate remedy rule is established.

---