2021 (2) TMI 405 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 - HELD THAT - It is found that not only the stand taken by the appellant was examined by the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has gone one step further to observe that the dealers have not furnished any documentary evidence for proof for movement of goods without which the physical occurrence of the transaction cannot be established. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has brushed aside the legal position and concluded the assessment rather the Assessing Officer has rendered a opinion on the available facts and taking note of the reply given by the appellant. Therefore, if according to the appellant this conclusion is factually wrong that needs to be agitated in an appeal and to be adjudicated by the appellate authority and not by a writ court. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was right in relegating the appellant to avail the available remedy of appeal - the writ appeals are dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the first appellant authority and if such appeal is filed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to limitation and take a decision on merit

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under TNVAT Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Whether the appellant can bypass statutory appellate remedy under Section 51 of the Act.

Analysis:
The writ petitions contested the assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for the mentioned assessment years based on two main points: purchases from registration-cancelled dealers and discrepancies in returns filed by purchasing and selling dealers. The appellant relied on legal precedents like the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Trading Company and a judgment of the High Court. The respondent defended the assessments, citing adherence to legal principles. The writ court declined to entertain the petitions, noting the availability of statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Act, referencing legal precedents like United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Authorized Officer, State Bank of India vs. K.C.Mathew to determine the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The appellant argued multiple grounds in the appeals, emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of sales tax proceedings and the applicability of principles of natural justice. They highlighted that retrospective cancellation of registration should not affect the purchasing dealer's rights, among other contentions. The court examined whether the single bench correctly directed the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The court reviewed the assessment proceedings, noting the Assessing Officer's detailed examination of the appellant's contentions and the lack of documentary evidence provided by the dealers. The court concluded that the appellant's challenge should be addressed through the appellate process, emphasizing that factual disputes should be resolved through appeal rather than writ petitions.

In light of the above analysis, the court dismissed the writ appeals, granting the appellant the liberty to file an appeal before the first appellant authority within thirty days. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the appeal without limitation constraints and decide on the merits in accordance with the law, disregarding any observations made by the court in the writ petitions. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.