Statutory objection remedy under VAT law preferred over writ review, with limitation protection and pre-deposit issues left to authority

Where an effective statutory objection remedy is available under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, the writ court may decline to examine the demand on merits and direct the taxpayer to pursue that remedy. The petitioner was permitted to file objections under Section 74, and the competent authority was to decide whether any pre-deposit was required before hearing them. The time spent before the Court was directed to be considered for exclusion while computing limitation, and the authority was also required to take note of the Supreme Court's suo motu limitation orders. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without merits adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory objection remedy under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and whether time spent before the Court should be excluded for limitation purposes, with the authority also considering the effect of Supreme Court orders in suo motu proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the demand and recovery proceedings arising under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, but the availability of an alternate remedy was accepted. The petitioner was therefore permitted to pursue objections under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. It was also recorded that, upon filing of objections, the competent authority would decide whether any pre-deposit was required before hearing the objections. Since the petitioner had approached the Court instead of the statutory forum, the time spent before the Court was directed to be considered for exclusion while computing limitation, and the authority was also to take note of the Supreme Court's orders in suo motu proceedings relating to limitation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the alternate statutory remedy under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, with directions on consideration of pre-deposit and exclusion of time for limitation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not adjudicated on merits and was disposed of by directing recourse to the statutory objection mechanism, along with protective directions concerning limitation and pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory objection remedy is available, the writ court may decline merits examination and direct the party to pursue that remedy, while issuing appropriate ancillary directions to protect limitation and procedural fairness.

---