The court affirmed that a timely application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 can be considered despite prior delays in appeals, especially when merits are supported by established legal precedents.

ORDER :

C.Saravanan, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records in the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN/33621101719/2013-2014 dated 11.05.2022 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on its own merits and in accordance with law.

3. The dispute relates to denial of input tax credit in terms of Section 19(5)(c) and 19(2)(V) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner had earlier suffered an Assessment order dated 24.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, wherein, the following amounts were confirmed against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner however did not choose to file an appeal against the aforesaid order and had slept over its rights. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with two recovery Notices dated 28.02.2020 and 21.03.2022 seeking to recover the aforesaid amount as per the Assessment Order dated 24.06.2016

5. During the interregnum, the petitioner was also issued with a Notice dated 06.05.2019 seeking to recover the aforesaid amount, as if it were a fresh Notice to recover an amount of Rs.3,39,081/- due under the aforesaid provisions instead of Rs.3,05,909/- towards the reversal of input tax credit under Section 19(5)(c) of TNVAT Act, 2006.

6. In this background, the petitioner challenged the recovery Notice dated 21.03.2022 in W.P.No.8071 of 2022. W.P.No.8071 of 2022 however came to be withdrawn at the time of its admission on 05.04.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9845 of 2022 to quash the Assessment Order dated 24.06.2016. W.P.No.9845 of 2022 was dismissed by this Court at the time of admission vide its order dated 25.04.2022. Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the aforesaid order dated 25.04.2022 read as under:-

“5.Assuming that, if there are any grounds under which the order impugned can be challenged before this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, that could have also been done immediately. Here, neither he has filed an appeal nor file a writ petition, after six years he has now filed this writ petition, therefore, on the ground of latches, this Court, in the considered opinion, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

6. That apart, since there is an appeal remedy available for the petitioner, the impugned order can very well be challenged before the Appellate Authority by stating whatever the reason for filing a belated appeal before the Appellate Authority.

7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, hence, it is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, this dismissal will not preclude the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority. If such an appeal is filed, depending upon the reasons to be submitted by filing the belated appeal, the same can be entertained after evaluating such reasons in proper perspective by the Appellate Authority.”

7. A reading of the above paragraphs indicates that the Court has not given liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Assessment order dated 24.06.2016 in clear terms. The issue on merits as on date is however covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 batch etc., vide its order dated 31.03.2022 in State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Departmen