Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Joy Alukkas India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) – Respondent
W.M.P. No.20142 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.A. Parthasarathy
For the Respondents: R. Sethu Prabakaran
The High Court will not exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an efficacious alternative statutory appellate remedy is available, particularly where the merits of the case can be addressed by the designated appellate authority.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and rectification order imposing a penalty under Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner contended that the underlying purchase tax issue was previously resolved in their favor and that the subsequent remand by the Tribunal was erroneous. The court observed that the impugned orders addressed the merits of the dispute. The central issue was whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the availability of a statutory appeal. The court reasoned that in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy, it is not appropriate to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, noting that the ongoing tax case proceedings render non-interference appropriate pending a remedy. The writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal, with interim protection from recovery proceedings for thirty days and an allowance for the exclusion of time spent in the present litigation from the limitation period.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to penalty assessment under state vat law. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before approaching the high court. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
ORDER
An order dated 12.01.2026, as rectified by order dated 06.03.2026, is assailed in this writ petition insofar as it relates to the levy of penalty under Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to payment of purchase tax under Section 12(1) of the aforementioned statute. He also submits that said tax was not passed on by the petitioner and that this contention was accepted by the appellate authority in the first round of litigation. In those circumstances, learned counsel contends that the Tribunal erroneously remanded the matter to the original authority and that this culminated in orders impugned herein. He adds that a tax case was filed challenging the remand order of the Tribunal and that the same is at the SR stage.
3. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice for the respondent.
4. On perusal of orders impugned herein, it is evident that the matter was considered on merits. In those circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in view of the existence of an alternative remedy.
5. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to lodge a statutory appeal. There shall be an interim stay of coercive or recovery proceedings pursuant to orders impugned herein for a period of thirty days so as to enable the petitioner to lodge the statutory appeal and obtain protection, in the meantime. It is also open to the petitioner to not lodge a statutory appeal, if the petitioner were to succeed in the tax case in the meanwhile. The time taken in prosecuting this writ petition is liable to be excluded while computing the applicable limitation period in respect of the appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
