TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t touching upon the merits of the matter. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions solely on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy and that the Writ Court should not exercise powers under Article 226 of The Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities, which were not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation prescribed before the concerned Appellate Authority. Admittedly, the assessments from the year 2007-08 to 2012- 13 were sought to be reopened and the entire reopening was on account of an inspection conducted by the respondent Assessing Officer on 23.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the appellant was deliberately avoiding to submit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31126, 31123 and 31122 of 2018. 2. All the said writ petitions were dismissed by individual orders dated 10.12.2020 solely on the ground that the assessee should avail the alternate remedy provided under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for short, the Act). 3. We have heard Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assessee and Mr.M.Venkateswaran, learned Government Advocate accepting notice for the respondent Department. 4. The place of business of the assessee was visited by the officials of the Enforcement Wing on 23.11.2015 and the Officials of the Enforcement Wing pointed out certain defects. Based on such opinion, the respondent Assessing Officer issued notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the show cause notices dated 07.10.2016 and completed the assessments. 6. The reasons assigned in all the assessments for the years from 2007-08 to 2012-13 and the basis, on which, the assessments were sought to be reopened were identical. The fact remains that no documents have been filed by the appellant despite grant of an opportunity. It cannot be stated that the respondent Assessing Officer acted in an unreasonable manner, as she extended time on three occasions at the request of the appellant. 7. However, we are conscious of the fact that the appellant is also a Central Government Department and the details sought for were from the year 2007-08 onwards. Hence, the appellant might have experienced certain difficulties in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining the said writ petitions, an order of interim stay was granted. The respondent filed a counter affidavit touching upon the merits of the matter. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions solely on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy and that the Writ Court should not exercise powers under Article 226 of The Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities, which were not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation prescribed before the concerned Appellate Authority. 11. An identical impugned order was tested for its correctness by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Constitution of India, which read as hereunder : (i) if there is unfairness in the action of the Statutory Authority; (ii) if there is unreasonableness in the action of the Statutory Authority; (iii) if perversity writs large in the action taken by the Authority; (iv) if the Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue and (v) if there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court will step in and exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. 8. Further, it would be highly beneficial to refer to the celebrated decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the year 2007-08 to 2012- 13 were sought to be reopened and the entire reopening was on account of an inspection conducted by the respondent Assessing Officer on 23.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the appellant was deliberately avoiding to submit the documents. But, the Court can perceive the difficulties since the transactions were dated back as early as 2007 and there might have been difficulty in getting the documents and more particularly when the appellant is a Central Government Organization. Hence, the reasonable approach that should have been adopted by the respondent Assessing Officer is to afford an opportunity to the appellant when they submitted their representation dated 28.11.2017 especially when the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
