TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 51 of TNVAT Act. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue, writ petitioner has gone into slumber after service of impugned order in the writ petition and has woken up only after the distraint notice was served on the writ petitioner on 15.04.2019 and has chosen to come to this Court on 1st July 2019 with the instant writ petition - There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the writ petitioner did not choose either to come to this Court or prefer a statutory appeal immediately after the receipt of the impugned order. It is now too late in the day to assail the impugned order. Petition dismissed. - W.P.No.19251 of 2019 And W.M.P.Nos.18685, 18689, 18692 & 18694 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2019 - Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Short facts shorn of elaboration are to the effect that writ petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of TNVAT Act, writ petitioner was filing monthly returns under Section 21 of TNVAT Act and there was deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. Subject matter of instant writ petition pertains to 'Assessment Year 2014-15' (hereinafter 'said AY' for brevity). 7. Learned counsel for writ petitioner assailed the impugned order-I on two main grounds and they are as follows: a) Objections given by writ petitioner being objections to the revisional notice have not been properly considered. To be precise, documents annexed to reply to the revisional notice have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aid of the writ petitioner primarily because of laches on the part of the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, (as alluded to supra) more than two years after impugned order-I was made and served on the writ petitioner. It was pointed out that a distraint notice for recovery was issued, that distraint notice is dated 15.04.2019 and only after the distraint notice was served on the writ petitioner, writ petitioner has woken up from slumber and filed the instant writ petition with the intention of delaying the recovery proceedings. To be noted, the 'distraint notice', which is nothing but a consequence of the impugned order-I has also been called in question in the instant writ petition and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o objections made by writ petitioner, wherein it has been stated that they have not effected any export, but proceeded to pass the order on the basis that there were exports. It is in this context that SRC Projects principle was applied by another Hon'ble Judge in Dharani Sugars case. 15. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned Revenue Counsel that Dharani Sugars case also is distinguishable on facts. 16. To be noted, in Dharani Sugar case, there is nothing to show that there was delay or laches on the part of the writ petitioner. 17. With regard to principles in these case laws, this Court reminds itself of the time honoured principle laid down by Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court that a statutory appeal lies to jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. 21. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue, writ petitioner has gone into slumber after service of impugned order in the writ petition and has woken up only after the distraint notice was served on the writ petitioner on 15.04.2019 and has chosen to come to this Court on 1st July 2019 with the instant writ petition. 22. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the writ petitioner did not choose either to come to this Court or prefer a statutory appeal immediately after the receipt of the impugned order. It is now too late in the day to assail the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
