TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For the Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) ORDER Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents, who are official respondents. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. Instant writ petition arises under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' (hereinafter 'TNVAT Act' for brevity) , 4. Short facts shorn of elaboration, details and particulars or in other words, factual matrix in a nutshell which is imperative for appreciating this order is as follows: a) Writ Petitioner is a dealer under TNVAT Act. b) Assessing Officer passed an order dated 29.04.2016. c) Writ petitioner, carried it in appeal by way of a statutory appeal to the first respondent under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution of India, particularly, when a further alternate remedy by way of an appeal to TNSTAT under Section 58 is available. In other words, it is the specific submission of learned State Counsel that writ petitioner has to necessarily avail the further alternate remedy by filing a regular statutory appeal to TNSTAT inter alia under Section 58 of TNVAT Act. 7. This Court has given its careful consideration to the rival submissions and the discussion leading to considered view of this Court is as follows: a) With regard to first submission of writ petitioner that TNSTAT has already dismissed the writ petitioner's appeal on the same point, albeit, with regard to an earlier Assessment Year being 2008-09 and the same having been carried to this Court by way of a Tax Revision Case cannot be a ground to bypass the alternate remedy. It was always open to writ petitioner to accelerate the Tax Case Revision pending before Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and if a finding is rendered, the same will bind the Tribunal i.e., TNSTAT. Suffice to say that this cannot be a ground to bypass the alternate remedy. b) The next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd page deal with various data relating to the assessment order, the assessing officer, the registration number and the details of turnovers and the tax, etc. In paragraph 2, the observations of the assessing officer are noted and in paragraph 3, starting from pages 39 to 41, different stands of the appellant have been noted. In paragraph 4, the conclusions of the first appellate authority are noted. They read as follows: I have carefully gone through the impugned order of assessment averments of the learned Advocate and the materials available on record. On the first point of dispute regarding the claim of the appellant towards refund of tax of ₹ 14,59,122.52 collected from the bidders, before this forum also the appellant failed to adduce any evidences regarding refund of tax to such bidders from whom tax was collected. In absence of such documentary evidences, the claim of the appellant is not credible. The second point of dispute regarding levy of tax on the sale turn-over of ₹ 1,21,03,375.18 is due to non-furnishing of declarations in forms. Hence, there is no interference from this forum on the observation of the learned S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retion. Though it is a rule of discretion, in Satyawati Tandon Case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in cases pertaining to taxes, cess, fees etc., the rigour of rule of alternate remedy has to be applied strictly. In other words, this rule has to be applied with greater rigour in matters pertaining to fiscal laws. h) To be noted, Satyawati Tandon principle was recently reiterated by 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 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 in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 128, Paras 43 55) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
