Tvl. Sri. Meenakshi Pharma vs. The Comercial Tax Officer(CT)

Held

The High Court held that the writ court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions. The court reasoned that in fiscal matters, it is well-settled that writ petitions should not be entertained straightaway against an order of the original authority, especially when a statutory appeal remedy is provided. The appellant had chosen to file writ petitions after a lapse of eight months, bypassing the statutory appeal route available before the Appellate Authority. However, considering the appellant's submission that they would file statutory appeals and had already deposited 25% of the demand pursuant to an interim order, the Court dismissed the writ appeals but granted liberty to the appellant to file statutory appeals within two weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider these appeals on merits, without reference to the period of limitation and without insisting on further pre-deposit, taking into account the 25% deposit already made.

Facts

The appellant, Tvl.Sri Meenakshi Pharma, filed three writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated January 31, 2017, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur II Assessment Circle. These orders pertained to the reversal of input tax credit for the tax periods 2011-12, 2013-14, and 2012-13. The writ petitions were filed approximately eight months after the assessment orders were issued. The writ court dismissed these petitions, citing the availability of a statutory appeal remedy and the delay in filing the writ petitions. The appellant then filed three writ appeals against the common order of the writ court dated September 7, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and availability of an alternative statutory remedy, when the appellant sought to challenge the orders of assessment? The petitioner/appellant argued that the writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned orders of assessment. The respondent/revenue contended that the writ petitions were filed after a significant delay of eight months and that a statutory appeal remedy was available to the aggrieved party before the concerned Appellate Authority. The revenue emphasized that in fiscal matters, writ petitions should not be entertained directly against an original authority's order when a statutory appeal mechanism exists.