Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURTMismatch - purchase suppression - case of the writ petitioner is that IEC Code of the writ petitioner has been misused by someone - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned orders on the ground of purchase suppression as the respondent cannot examine the alleged misuse of IEC plea as that plea is within the domain of Customs Commissionerate. It is for the writ petitioner to carry the issue to its logical end with the Customs Commissionerate. This Court is of the considered view that writ petitioner, not being able to demonstrate that they pursued the matter with the concerned authorities in the last 2 ½ years and now be heard to contend that it is for the respondent to furnish details of bills of entry and this Court is convinced that challenge to two impugned orders cannot be predicated on this basis. This Court is also of the considered view that there is no impediment for the writ petitioner to pursue the complaint said to have been given before the Commissionerate and carry the same to its logical end. If the writ petitioner carries the compliant to its logical end and if something favourable to the writ petitioner comes out of the same, documents such as bills of entry and other import particulars, which are subject matter of purchase suppression can always be produced by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Appellate remedy - HELD THAT:- There is nothing to demonstrate that the order has been passed without jurisdiction or disregarded settled legal position or without giving an opportunity to writ petitioner to show cause. In other words, the rule of alternate remedy is not a rule of compulsion. It is a rule of discretion. To put it differently, alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule. Suffice to say that there is nothing to demonstrate that this case, more particularly, the impugned orders does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternative remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner. This Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petitions and no ground which warrants interference in the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction has been made out - petition dismissed.
|