TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER:- K. CHANDRU J. The petitioner in all these eight writ petitions is M/s. G.K. Steel Allied Industries Pvt., Ltd., having their headquarters at Coimbatore. The writ petitions arose out of the orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. In the first writ petition (W.P. (MD) No. 1611 of 2004), the challenge is to an order passed by the second respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore, dated March 26, 1998 and for a further direction from treating the subject stock transfers as inter-State sales. 3. In the second writ petition (W.P. (MD) No. 1612 of 2004) the challenge is to an order passed by the second respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, P. N. Palayam, Coimbatore, dated June 29, 2001 as modified in appellate order in appeal CST No. 56/2001, dated August 14, 2003. The modification was done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore. 4. In the third writ petition (W.P. (MD) No. 1613 of 2004), the challenge is to an order, dated June 29, 2001, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore and modified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore, dated August 14, 2003 in appeal CST No. 55 of 2001. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 11. Similarly, in W.P. (MD) No. 1647 of 2004, the challenge is an order dated September 18, 1999, which is against the assessment order and in W.P. (MD) No. 1648 of 2004, the challenge is to an order dated January 25, 1993 and W.P. (MD) No. 1649 of 2004, the order dated April 2, 1993 and in W.P. (MD) No. 1650 of 2004, the order dated July 31, 1999. The Kerala General Sales Tax Act provides for an appeal and a further appeal to the Tribunal. The petitioner has chosen to a venue, which is convenient for him to file there being no jurisdiction either for the Principal Bench or for the Madurai Bench to deal with such matters, where the cause of action exclusively arose in the State of Kerala and the petitioner was involved in the assessment order being passed by the authority under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of those four writ petitions has not even stated as to why he has chosen to avail of the forum at Chennai. Even in the affidavit, which is more or less a stereo type affidavit, it is only stated that the factory is situated at Thamaraipadi, Dindigul, within the jurisdiction of this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made even the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, as a party/respondent. Similarly, in W.P.(MD)No.1613 of 2004 the challenge is to an order as noted already, the order of appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore, which is modified the order of the Assistant Assessment Officer and it relates to CST.No.55 of 2001, dated 14.08.2003. The very same matter was challenged before the Additional Bench in Coimbatore Tribunal Appeal No.179 of 2004 and 180 of 2004 and the petitioner has withdrawn those appeals for reasons best known to him. 14. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can bye-pass an appellate Tribunal, when there is an effective remedy provided by way of an appeal to the Tribunal, which is provided by the judicial authority. In such circumstances, if he took treat that some portion of the cause of action arose was in Coimbatore District, then the Principal Bench is the only Bench he could have filed such a writ petition. 15. In all these matters, the Commercial Tax Officer P.N.Palayam Circle, Coimbatore, has filed a common counter affidavit claiming that the appellate Assistant Commissioner, on verification of the records, found that it is not a stock tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had observed as follows: 29.By referring to the aforesaid schemes under different statutes, this Court wants to underline that the right of appeal, being always a creature of a statute, its nature, ambit and width has to be determined from the statute itself. When the language of the statute regarding the nature of the order from which right of appeal has been conferred is clear, no statutory interpretation is warranted either to widen or restrict the same. 30.The argument that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted by parliamentary legislation is far too fundamental to be questioned especially after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. However, that does not answer the question of maintainability of a writ petition which seeks to impugn an order declining dispensation of predeposit of penalty by the Appellate Tribunal. 31.When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Ltd., v. Union of India speaking through B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. delivering the majority judgment, and dealing with a case of refund of Central excise duty held: (SCC p.607e-f, para 77) ;77. .... So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. In the concluding portion of the judgment it was further held: (Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case14, SCC p.635c, para 108) (x) .... The power under Article 226 is conceived to serve the ends of law and not to transgress them. ..... 38.The learned counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment of this Court in Seth Chand Ratan v. Pandit Durga Prasad, 2003 (5) SCC 399. The learned counsel relied on para 13 of the said judgment which, inter alia, lays down the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
