9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business of trading and manufacturing of telecommunication equipment. For the purpose of sales tax in the State of Haryana, the petitioner got itself registered with Assessing Authority, Gurgaon on 16th October 2006. Prior to 21.08.2013, the petitioner was having its principal place of business at 14th Floor, Tower-C, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurgaon. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted its principal place of business to 7th and 8th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze I-Tech Park, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon. The petitioner duly filed an application for amendment in the registration certificate intimating the change in registered/communication address. In pursuance thereto, the department changed the address of the petitioner in its record. For the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner filed its quarterly as well as Annual Return in Forms R-1 and R-2 respectively in compliance with the provisions of HVAT Act. According to the petitioner, no notice in Form VAT N-2 had ever been served upon it. On 10th June 2016, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the official of the Excise and Taxation Department, Gurgaon served the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 upon it for the year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 by sending the notices on the old address and affixation was made when the firm was not found to be existing there. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the substantial demand had been raised under the CST Act only in the absence of production of statutory declaration form and export sales which were in possession of the petitioner and could be produced in case opportunity was given. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. After perusing the averments made in the petition and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, we find that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The narration of facts noticed hereinbefore clearly shows that certain factual matrix is required to be established for which the first appellate authority would be proper forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the first instance. 7. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 357 ITR 357, considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available. After examining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72). 17. In Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, this Court has held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief and observed as follows: "12. In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 this Court adverted to the rule of selfimposed restraint that the writ petition will not be entertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) "77. ... So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226-or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is 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.""(See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1998) 8 SCC 272; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
