TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dealer Annexure II and purchase details from this dealers annexure I pertains to claim of Input Tax Credit [ITC]. Here, the pivotal question is whether the purchases were made from unregistered dealers had to be considered. For examining this, the Assessing Authority had to necessarily look at Annexure II of the sellers - though it appears that the heads are not severable, on a closer scrutiny, it comes out clearly that head nos.2 and 4 are clearly severable and therefore, the submission made by learned Senior counsel that the Assessing officer cannot dissect the heads, does not carry the writ petitioner any further in this case. In other words, this submission is negatived by this Court for the reasons that have been set out thus far. Short payment of tax - HELD THAT:- With regard to this head which is the other head under which tax has been levied, that pertains to short payment of tax and it is nobody s case that it is dovetailed with any of the other issues. Therefore, this head is a stand apart issue. Another aspect of the matter, which has been noticed by this Court is that there is no disputation or disagreement about the obtaining legal position that any number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 65 of TNVAT Act and during such inspection, Enforcement Wing officials noticed certain aspects, which according to them are discrepancies. 6. Before this Court proceeds further, it is necessary to mention that the writ petitioner is same in all these seven writ petitions. It is also submitted by both sides before this Court in the hearing that the central theme/core issue in all these seven writ petitions is the same. It is also submitted that these writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix, only the Assessment Years being different. The Assessment Years, which form subject matter of the seven instant writ petitions are 2010 z126 2011, 2011 2012, 2012 2013, 2013 2014, 2014 2015, 2015 2016 and 2016 2017. As the Assessment Years are different, obviously the numerical values are also different. To be noted, on this basis, the common order disposing of the seven writ petitions is being passed with consent of both sides. 7. Reverting to the central theme of writ petitions on hand, notwithstanding several averments made in the affidavits filed in support of instant writ petitions and several grounds / contentions raised in the affidavits filed in support of instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads namely under heads 1, 5, 6 and 8 supra. With regard to heads 3 and 4, vide impugned orders, the same were deferred. Tax and penalty was levied with regard to heads 2 and 7 alone. 14. The lone point that is canvassed by the learned Senior counsel is that the respondent cannot dissect the revision proceedings, severe the same, defer the proceedings with regard to two heads namely Nos.3 and 4 supra and thereafter, levy tax and penalty with regard to heads Nos. 2 and 7. The pointed submission was with regard to head Nos.2 and 4. As would be evident from the narrative thus far, with regard to head No.2, tax has been levied, whereas with regard to head No.4, the same has been deferred. Learned Senior counsel pointed out that with regard to head No.2, for difference between purchases and sales turnover, the opening stock has been taken into account, but with regard to verification of purchase of details under head No.4, the same has been deferred. In other words, it is submitted that while verification of purchase details being head No.4 has been deferred, head No.2, which deals with difference between purchase and sales turnover, ought not to have been gone into. 15. As already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner any further in this case. In other words, this submission is negatived by this Court for the reasons that have been set out thus far. 17. With regard to head No.7 which is the other head under which tax has been levied, that pertains to short payment of tax and it is nobody s case that it is dovetailed with any of the other issues. Therefore, head No.7 is a stand apart issue. 18. Another aspect of the matter, which has been noticed by this Court is that there is no disputation or disagreement about the obtaining legal position that any number of assessment orders can be passed by an Assessing officer in exercise of revisional powers under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. When this is the obtaining legal position, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the respondent severing 2 out of 8 heads, deferring the same, levying tax on two other heads and dropping four other heads in favour of the writ petitioner dealer. 19. This takes us to the issue of alternate remedy. 20. As the impugned orders have been made in exercise of powers under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, there is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that a statutory appellate remedy is available again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule, Hon ble Supreme Court, in Satyawati Tandon Case [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110], held that in cases pertaining to tax, cess etc., alternate remedy rule has to be applied with utmost rigour. 24. Satyawati Tandon principle was reiterated by Hon ble Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment 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 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 in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 128, Paras 43 55) “43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
