TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain writ petition 'two orders both dated 15.11.2018 bearing reference TIN:33725024829/2016-17 and TIN 33725024829/2015-16' have been assailed (hereinafter 'impugned orders' for the sake of convenience and clarity). One impugned order pertains to assessment year 2015-16 and the other pertains to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Impugned orders have been made under Section 27 of 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' [hereinafter 'TNVAT Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, this is second round of litigation. Earlier, writ petitioner came to this Court vide W.P.(MD)No.4760 of 2021 and that was disposed of by a Hon'ble Single Judge vide order dated 09.03.2021. In that order, the respondent was directed to furnish copies of the orders qua assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, pursuant to which impugned orders were served on the writ petitioner under cover of a letter dated 08.04.2021. The prayer in the captioned writ petition is not happily worded but it is the case of the counsel for writ petitioner that impugned orders were served on the writ petitioner under cover of one letter dated 08.04.2021 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt deems it appropriate to remind itself that when it comes to legal drill of revision under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, it will suffice if a reasonable opportunity to show cause is given. In other words, personal hearing is not statutorily imperative and it is only optional at the discretion of the Assessing Officer. This position of law was laid down in State Bank of India Officer's Association case being W.P.No.22634 of 2019 [State Bank of India Officer's Association (CC) SBIOA Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai] , dated 01.08.2019. This order was carried in appeal by way of an intra Court appeal in W.A.No.4073 of 2019 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the State appeal. In this case, the respondent has chosen to give a personal hearing but the writ petitioner has not availed the same (as already alluded to supra). There is a clear mention about atleast one of the pre-revision notices viz., pre-revision notice dated 30.11.2017 in the writ petition more particularly in paragraph 4 of the writ affidavit. c) This takes this discussion to the second point regarding mismatch verification. A careful perusal of the impugned orders reveal that the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.' ( Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight ) e) Satyawati Tandon principle was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case. Relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathew case law 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 Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceptions are attracted), there would be interference in writ jurisdiction. Relevant paragraphs in Commercial Steel Limited case law are paragraph Nos.11 and 12, which read as follows: '11 The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was CA 5121/2021 7 not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
