9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1187 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAlternative remedy of appeal - Jurisdiction - principles of natural justice - cancellation of registration certificate - HELD THAT - In the instant case, in the considered view of this Court, in the light of the submissions of the writ petitioner, which have been set out and alluded to supra, the writ petitioner has not been able to make out a case to show that his case falls under any of the exceptions which would compell this Court to interfere under writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the alternate remedy. There is no ground to persuade this Court to believe that there is violation of NJP. The writ petitioner, not being able to demonstrate that alternate remedy is neither ineffectual or not efficacious, in the considered opinion of this Court need not have embarked upon the exercise of making repeated submissions which assail impugned order on merits. To be noted, submissions assailing impugned order on merits are left open, as already mentioned supra elsewhere in this order, as this Court is relegating the writ petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). 2. Adequacy of notice and opportunity for personal hearing provided to the petitioner. 3. Availability and appropriateness of alternate remedy through appeal. 4. Alleged violation of natural justice principles (NJP). Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Impugned Assessment Order: The entire proceedings arise under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The writ petitioner, in the course of business, filed monthly returns and there was deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. The Enforcement Wing Officers conducted an audit, found discrepancies, and issued a notice to the petitioner, who replied. A personal hearing was granted on 21.01.2019, and an Assessment Order dated 23.04.2019 was passed. The petitioner challenged this order. 2. Adequacy of Notice and Opportunity for Personal Hearing: A careful perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was given notice about the proposal by the Enforcement Wing and filed objections, which were considered. The petitioner was given a personal hearing on 21.01.2019 but did not file any representation or produce documentary evidence during the hearing. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the trajectory of proceedings before the respondent. 3. Availability and Appropriateness of Alternate Remedy: The court observed that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (S.T), Chennai (North). The court emphasized that the rule of alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not compulsion, subject to exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of NJP, or inefficacy of the alternate remedy. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his case fell under any of these exceptions. 4. Alleged Violation of Natural Justice Principles (NJP): The petitioner argued that there was a violation of NJP. However, the court found no merit in this argument. The impugned order detailed the notice issued, the objections filed by the petitioner, and the opportunity for a personal hearing. The court extracted paragraph 4 of the impugned order, which confirmed that the petitioner's objections were considered, and an opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The court concluded that there was no violation of NJP. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, indicating that the petitioner should pursue the alternate remedy of an appeal. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as any view would bind the Appellate Authority. The court also noted that the petitioner did not press into service the principles from the Madras Granites Limited and Narasus Roller Flour Mills cases, which emphasize independent assessment by the Assessing Officer. The petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
