9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to as TNVAT Act for the sake of brevity and convenience. 5. Writ petitioner is a dealer under TNVAT Act. Writ petitioner was filing monthly returns under Section 21 of TNVAT Act and there was deemed assessment interalia under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. When things stood thus, the business premises of the writ petitioner was inspected by Enforcement Wing officials of the Tax Department on 02.08.2016. This was under Section 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 differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of purchase details from other dealer Annexure II and purchase details from this dealers annexure I 5] Check post Movement Details 6] Levy of tax on deletion of assets 7] Short payment of tax 8] Other income 13. After elaborately considering the objections of the writ petitioner, which has been made by way of reply to the revisional notices, respondent, dropped revised assessment under four heads 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 purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered dealers for which corresponding ITC has to be reversed at the rate of 14.5%. Therefore, on first blush, though it appears that head nos.2 and 4 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. 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 ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suffice to say that it is nobody s case that the instant cases fall under any of the exceptions to alternate remedy rule. 23. With regard to alternate remedy rule itself, as already mentioned supra, it is clearly a self& imposed restraint by Courts exercising writ jurisdiction. In other words, alternate remedy rule is not a rule of compulsion, but it is a rule of discretion. Though the 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 agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
