9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s say. Three separate orders made by the lone respondent in the three captioned main writ petitions, all dated 08.07.2021 bearing reference Nos. 33AAMFS6152PIZL/2017-18, 33AAMFS6152PIZL/2018-19 and 33AAMFS6152PIZL/2019-20 qua assessment years 2017-2018, 2018- 2019 and 2019-2020 respectively have been assailed in the captioned main writ petitions. To be noted, all these three orders have been made under Section 74 of of 'Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2017)' [hereinafter 'TN-GST Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and 'Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017' [hereinafter 'C-GST Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] though provision of law under which the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the writ petitioner has not been considered. The objections has been taken into account and respondent vide impugned orders has in fact held that writ petitioner tax payer being beneficiary, ITC has been adjusted towards outward tax liability. Learned Revenue counsel went on to say that it is the argument of learned counsel for writ petitioner that this is insufficient or reason is inadequate but even on an extreme demurer this can only be a ground for appeal and it does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction on NJP infraction ground. Learned Revenue counsel pointed out that alternate remedy is available to writ petitioner qua all three impugned orders and alternate remedy is appeal under Section 107 of TN-GST Act and C-GST Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, alleged NJP violation point is not compelling enough to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. This takes us to alternate remedy rule. Alternate remedy rule is no doubt not an absolute rule. In other words, alternate remedy rule is discretionary and it is a self-imposed restraint qua writ jurisdiction. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of authorities i.e., catena of case laws has held that alternate remedy rule has to be very strictly applied i.e., with utmost rigour when it comes to fiscal Statute. This is inter-alia in Dunlop India case [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and others r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 10. Satyawati Tandon principle was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case. 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: (SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.' (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 11. To be noted in paragraph No.10 of K.C.Mathew's case, Satyawati Tondon principle has been extracted and reproduced. Therefore, this Court refrains itself from embarking upon the exercise of extracting and reproducing relevant paragraphs from Satyawati Tondon case law also. 12. Be that as it may, very recently i.e., on 03.09.2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., a three member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through Hon'ble Justice Dr.Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud in Commercial Steel Limited case [Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.' 13. In the case on hand, the lone point that is urged before this Court turns on NJP violation. This Court has come to the conclusion (as would be evident from the discussion and dispositive reasoning articulated supra) that alleged NJP facet violation in this case is not compelling enough. Absent compelling NJP violation, as there is no other exception (exceptions to alternate remedy rule) that arises in the case on hand, it is clear that this is a fit case to relegate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
