9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails or in other words factual matrix in a nutshell, which is imperative for appreciating this order, runs as follows: a)Writ petitioner is a dealer in household articles and distributor of certain products. Writ petitioner is registered under the 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006' ('TNVAT Act' for brevity). b) Writ petitioner was filing monthly returns under Section 21 of TNVAT Act and there was deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. c) The case of the writ petitioner was selected for scrutiny as part of random scrutiny and summons dated 19.07.2018 bearing reference TIN/33580988057/2013-14 was issued. d) Writ petitioner, admittedly, did not respond to the summons, as can be cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would be appropriate to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioner to produce books of accounts as well as purchase and sales details. It was submitted that writ petitioner could not respond to the summons and more particularly aforesaid summons dated 19.07.2018 and intimation notice dated 29.03.2019 owing to ill-health. 5.An outpatient registration issued by a hospital and diagnostic report have also been filed as part of case file. From the perusal of the same, this Court finds that there is no medical report to the effect that writ petitioner was advised bed rest. There is no medical report to the effect that writ petitioner could not attend to his day-to-day work. Even if there is such a medical report, it is for the writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reater rigour. This Satyawati Tandon principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85]. Relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathew's case is Paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.' 10. In the instant case, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the statutory appeal i.e., alternate remedy, has to be preferred within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 was received by the writ petitioner on 09.05.2019. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, there is a provision for Appellate Authority to condone delay albeit subject to a cap of 30 days. In other words, there is a cap of 30 days. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
