9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 62 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - service or order - TNVAT Act, 2006 - entire revised assessment is based on mismatch issue - HELD THAT - The two revisional notices were issued, replies / objections were sent by the writ petitioner dealer, first personal hearing was held, thereafter a third revisional notice was sent and after the third revisional notice, second personal hearing was held, wherein reply to the third revisional notice also was filed and after considering all these, the impugned order has been passed - there is clearly no violation of 'Natural Justice Principles'. It is also nobody's case that the respondent does not have jurisdiction or powers to pass revised assessment orders under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. Alternate remedy - HELD THAT - It is clearly a self imposed restraint qua writ Courts. Though it is a self imposed restraint qua writ Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court had repeatedly held that in fiscal law matters, this rule of alternate remedy has to be applied with utmost rigour. In other words, this Court reminds itself that though alternate remedy rule is a rule of discretion and not a rule of compulsion, in fiscal statute matters, the same has to be applied with utmost rigour. It has been held in UNITED BANK OF INDIA VERSUS SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS 2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases pertaining to tax, cess etc., alternate remedy rule has to be applied with utmost rigour. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal, if the writ petitioner is within the prescribed time limit and subject to pre deposit conditions adumbrated in Section 51. This Court notices from the case file that this writ petition itself was dismissed for default on 11.09.2018 as the writ petitioner did not pursue / prosecute the same. This writ petition is dismissed albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner qua alternate remedy.
Issues:
1. Validity of revised assessment order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act 2. Compliance with natural justice principles 3. Availability of alternate remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act Validity of Revised Assessment Order: The judgment revolves around a writ petition challenging a revised assessment order issued under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner, a dealer, was subjected to the revised assessment due to discrepancies in returns filed. The respondent identified over two hundred specific mismatches, leading to the impugned revised assessment order dated 14.11.2016. The order accepted some objections raised by the petitioner but rejected others based on lack of supporting documents. The court noted the procedural steps followed, including issuance of revisional notices, replies by the petitioner, and personal hearings, ultimately upholding the validity of the revised assessment order. Compliance with Natural Justice Principles: The judgment emphasized the adherence to natural justice principles in the assessment process. It highlighted that the respondent considered the objections and replies of the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The court found no violation of natural justice principles and affirmed that the respondent had the jurisdiction to issue revised assessment orders under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act. Availability of Alternate Remedy: Regarding the availability of an alternate remedy, the court discussed the option of appealing against the impugned order under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. Citing legal precedents, including the Dunlop India case and subsequent judgments, the court underscored the importance of applying the alternate remedy rule rigorously in fiscal law matters. It reiterated that writ courts should exercise caution in entertaining petitions challenging revenue-related actions, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment dismissed the writ petition while preserving the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory appeal within the prescribed time limit and pre-deposit conditions outlined in Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the validity of the revised assessment order, affirmed compliance with natural justice principles, and directed the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy through the statutory appeal process under the TNVAT Act.
|
