9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1477 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - Alternative remedy of filing a revision - Section 54 of TNVAT Act - only grievance of the petitioner is that the objection made by the petitioner by way of reply dated 14.12.2010 had not been considered by the second respondent before passing the impugned order - Held that - it cannot be said that the second respondent had not considered the objections of the petitioner, amounting to violation of natural justice requiring interference of this Court in exercise of the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, when the statutory remedy available stands barred by limitation even at the time of filing of the writ petition, it would be without any justification to entertain a Writ Petition against such order. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenging order dated 28.12.2010 in TIN 33345683959/2010-11, violation of natural justice, limitation in filing revision under Section 54 of TNVAT Act, consideration of objections by the second respondent, statutory remedy barred by limitation, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissal of Writ Petition, compliance with interim order of paying 30% of the demand. Analysis: The High Court judgment dealt with a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the second respondent on 28.12.2010. The petitioner argued that their objection in a reply dated 14.12.2010 had not been considered before the order was passed, alleging a violation of natural justice. The respondents contended that the petitioner could have filed a revision under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act within 30 days of receiving the order, with a provision for an additional 30-day extension, which had lapsed in this case by 06.03.2011. The petitioner approached the Court on 22.03.2011, after the statutory period had expired. The Court examined the objection raised by the petitioner in their reply, where they detailed the stock deficit, sale value, and tax paid, seeking adjustment as advance tax. The impugned order had considered this objection and found discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions. The Court noted that the objection was duly addressed by the second respondent, concluding that there was no violation of natural justice. Given the statutory remedy was time-barred when the Writ Petition was filed, the Court found no merit in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs. Regarding an interim order issued earlier, directing the petitioner to pay 30% of the demand within a specified period, the Court noted the lack of evidence showing compliance with this condition. The Court instructed that if the payment was made by the petitioner, it should be adjusted by the respondents while recovering the amount as per the impugned order. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and fulfilling conditions set by the Court in interim orders.
|
