2019 (8) TMI 1602 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Principles of Natural Justice - grievance of the writ petitioner is that none of the legal grounds, including jurisdiction raised by the writ petitioner were not considered and the impugned order is passed - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that undoubtedly, violation of principles of natural justice is a ground to entertain a Writ Petition. However, it cannot be a routine affair and only on exceptional circumstances, statutory appeal remedy can be dispensed with. Simply because the ground regarding the violation of principles of natural justice is raised, the same would not constitute a ground for entertaining all Writ Petitions. It is pertinent to note that the appellate authorities are also exercising quasi judicial powers under the Act. Therefore, all such appellate authorities or the Special Tribunals constituted under the Act are empowered to adjudicate all the legal grounds including the ground regarding the violation of principles of natural justice as well as the jurisdiction. This Court is of the considered opinion that all such original issues now raised by the writ petitioner regarding the particulars, details and documents given to the tax authorities, are to be adjudicated by the appellate authorities by calling for the original files, evidences and other particulars produced by the writ petitioner at the time of enquiry and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal - HELD THAT - Section 51 of the Act, 2006 provides an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The impugned order itself states that the writ petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Building, A.R.Line Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 002, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order as per Section 51 of the Act, 2006 - This being the principles to be considered, the writ petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of the Act. The writ petitioner is at liberty to prefer a statutory appeal in the prescribed format along with all the documents within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - In the event of receiving any such appeal from the writ petitioner, the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes is directed to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and competency of the respondent authority.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Adequacy of alternative remedy.
4. Consideration of provided documents and auditor’s certificate.
5. Timeliness of filing an appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Competency of the Respondent Authority:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the jurisdiction and competency of the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II who assessed the VAT liability. The petitioner argued that the turnover was calculated on an all-India basis, which should not fall under the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu tax authorities. The court, however, did not delve deeply into this issue, implying that such jurisdictional questions could be adequately addressed by the appellate authorities.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without considering the legal grounds and objections raised, including the violation of principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged that while violation of natural justice is a valid ground for entertaining a writ petition, it should not be a routine affair and should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized that appellate authorities are competent to adjudicate on such legal grounds, including violations of natural justice.

3. Adequacy of Alternative Remedy:
The court reiterated the principle that statutory appeal remedies should not be bypassed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the statutory appeal mechanisms and allowing appellate authorities to exercise their quasi-judicial powers. The court cited several precedents to underline that writ petitions should not be entertained if an efficacious alternative remedy is available, except in cases of gross injustice or violation of fundamental rights.

4. Consideration of Provided Documents and Auditor’s Certificate:
The petitioner argued that the respondent authority did not consider the documents and auditor’s certificate provided, leading to an improper assessment. The court noted that the non-consideration of such documents is an issue that should be adjudicated by the appellate authorities. The appellate authorities are better positioned to scrutinize the auditor’s certificate and other documents, and to arrive at a finding based on the merits of the case.

5. Timeliness of Filing an Appeal:
The petitioner expressed concern that the 30-day period for filing an appeal had expired. The court, understanding the importance of allowing the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedies, directed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The court provided the petitioner with an additional eight weeks to file an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within eight weeks, and the appellate authority was instructed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law. The court highlighted the importance of respecting the separation of powers and ensuring that statutory appeal mechanisms are not undermined by routine judicial interventions.

← Previous Next →