Vijayalakshmi vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, Vijayalakshmi, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging a final order dated July 24, 2024, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2, Karur-1, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner initially claimed that her representation/explanation dated February 11, 2024, was not considered. However, upon verification, the Court found that the first respondent had indeed passed a detailed order considering the petitioner's explanation. This detailed order, though not initially filed by the petitioner, was produced by the respondents. The tax period in dispute is 2022-23.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available under Section 107(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the first respondent had passed a detailed order on July 24, 2024, considering the petitioner's explanation, contrary to the petitioner's initial claim. The existence of this detailed order and the statutory appellate mechanism rendered the writ petition inappropriate. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy, and it should not be invoked when a clear and efficacious alternative remedy exists. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will be dismissed if an adequate alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that if the appeal is filed within the stipulated period, it shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority without reference to the period of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner initially approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, alleging non-consideration of her representation. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternative remedy, but rather sought quashing of the impugned order. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, contended that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the respective GST Acts, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. They submitted the detailed order passed by the first respondent, which considered the petitioner's explanation.