2013 (12) TMI 273 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Alternate remedy available or not Held that - The Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice - Following Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1983 (4) TMI 49 - SUPREME Court - the party in the ordinary course should approach the appellate authority provided under the Act. High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field Thus, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging common order of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding exemption on Central Sales Tax for transfer of goods outside the State.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Factual Background:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing domestic electrical fuses, claimed exemption on Central Sales Tax for transferring goods outside Tamil Nadu. The Commercial Tax Department's search revealed consignee names on documents, leading to disallowance of exemption and imposition of 10% tax.

2. Appellate Proceedings:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed appeals based on affidavits supporting branch transfers. However, the State contended that goods were manufactured on prior orders for ultimate buyers in other states, leading to penalty for non-reporting in monthly returns.

3. Tribunal Decision:
The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted State's contentions, differing from the Appellate Authority's findings. The Tribunal upheld penalty for tax evasion due to non-reporting of transactions.

4. Petitioner's Submissions:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's finding was based on non-existing movement, and the penalty imposition was automatic. The petitioner sought resolution of conflicting findings by different authorities.

5. Legal Position and Dismissal:
The High Court emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the Court. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of utilizing appellate forums provided by the law. As the petitioner failed to exhaust the appeal remedy, the writ petitions were dismissed, emphasizing the availability of an alternative legal recourse.

This detailed analysis covers the issues, factual background, appellate proceedings, tribunal decision, petitioner's submissions, and the legal position leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions due to the failure to exhaust statutory remedies.