Statutory rectification remedy bars writ interference where assessment disputes depend on factual classification issues.

Writ interference with assessment orders was declined because the assessee had already invoked the statutory rectification mechanism under Section 84, and the dispute turned on factual classification of the goods sold as packing materials or pre-recorded DVDs and CDs. The pending rectification objections were left for the assessing authority to decide in accordance with law. The court therefore dismissed the writ petitions, while preserving the rectification remedy and directing expeditious disposal of the objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders were maintainable when the petitioner had already pursued rectification under the statutory mechanism and the dispute involved factual classification; (ii) whether the pending objections under the rectification provision warranted interference with the assessment orders.

Issue (i): whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders were maintainable when the petitioner had already pursued rectification under the statutory mechanism and the dispute involved factual classification.

Analysis: The petitioner had already invoked the rectification mechanism under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 in relation to the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The controversy also depended on factual questions as to whether the goods sold were packing materials or pre-recorded or recorded DVDs and CDs, which required determination by the statutory authority rather than interference in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained in writ jurisdiction and the petitions were held to be without merit.

Issue (ii): whether the pending objections under the rectification provision warranted interference with the assessment orders.

Analysis: Since the petitioner's objections under Section 84 were already pending, the proper course was for the respondent to decide them in accordance with law. The pendency of that statutory process, along with the factual disputes, militated against setting aside the assessment orders at that stage.

Conclusion: No interference was made with the assessment orders, and the statutory objections were left to be decided by the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed while preserving the petitioner's rectification remedy and directing expeditious disposal of the pending objections.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has already invoked a statutory rectification remedy and the dispute turns on contested factual classification, writ interference with assessment orders is ordinarily unwarranted.

---