M/S.Karruppasami Traders vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Karuppasami Traders, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to remand the matter for reconsideration. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is the Commercial Tax Officer, and the second respondent is the Branch Manager of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Srivaikundam Branch. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, the Court noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner's arguments were on the merits of the order and did not fall within the exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the statute) that would justify entertaining a writ petition. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. No observations were made on the merits of the case. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal and sought its quashing and remand for reconsideration. The petitioner's arguments were on the merits of the order. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly present arguments but relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited. This precedent emphasizes that writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances like breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute are present.