Seashell Vs Lt. Governor and Others (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that violation of principles of natural justice and erroneous order cannot be reason for bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal under section 76 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Value Added Tax Regulation, 2017. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Facts- Notices under sections 32 and 33 of the 2017 Regulation were served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed statutory objection as per section 74 of the 2017 Regulation. Such objection was rejected. Challenging such rejection order and the two notices, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notably, the respondent authorities challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there exists an alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal under section 76 of the VAT Regulation.
It is contested that the last date for issuing notice of assessment stood expired. Hence, the notices u/s. 32 and 33 of the VAT Regulation are barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment period(s) FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-2020 cannot be brought under the purview of assessment or reassessment as the assessment has been made between 2024 and early 2025. Therefore, the said notices are without jurisdiction.
Conclusion- Held that under challenge in this writ petition is also an order of the Joint Commissioner dated July 22, 2025, rejecting the petitioner’s objection to the impugned notices. It is nobody’s case that said order suffers from jurisdictional error. The order may be an erroneous order but that would not entitle the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction to challenge that order, bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal under section 76 of the Regulation.
