2015 (9) TMI 99 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of Suit Statutory Bar to entertain Suit Suit was filed before trial court, praying for decree of declaration that notice, issued by Department, was illegal and void Said suit was dismissed on ground for non-prosecution Appeal filed for restoration of suit was also rejected Held that - Appellate judge considered affidavit filed by petitioner, in light of order passed by trial court Appellate Judge had very clearly held that petitioner invented new reasons to suit his convenience however had not given any explanation with regard to contradictory stand taken by him Also Section 77 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 contains statutory bar which limits Civil Court from entertaining civil suit to set aside or modify any assessment made under Act This provision was overlooked by trial court, while entertaining suit Petitioner wanted Civil Court to be converted as appellate authority over authorities constituted under TNVAT Act In view of said observations impugned order sustains Decided against Assesse.

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the suit challenging the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer.
2. Dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution and subsequent application for restoration.
3. Consideration of contradictory reasons for non-appearance by the petitioner.
4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters governed by special statutes like the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Suit
The petitioner filed a suit challenging the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, seeking a declaration that the notice was illegal and void. The second respondent contested the suit's maintainability, arguing that the suit should not have been entertained without addressing the basic issue of maintainability. The Trial Court was criticized for not considering the statutory bar under Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which prohibits Civil Courts from entertaining suits to set aside or modify assessments made under the Act. The Act provides a specific machinery for redressing grievances, implying a bar on civil suits. The Trial Court overlooked this provision, indicating a lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the suit.

Issue 2: Dismissal and Restoration of the Suit
The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to restore the suit, citing reasons for non-appearance. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner had previously provided false reasons for non-appearance in another case. The Appellate Judge upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioner had presented contradictory reasons to restore different suits, indicating an attempt to manipulate the legal process. The dismissal of the application for restoration was deemed appropriate based on the petitioner's inconsistent explanations.

Issue 3: Consideration of Contradictory Reasons
The Court highlighted the petitioner's inconsistent reasons for non-appearance in different suits, emphasizing the importance of providing genuine and consistent explanations in legal proceedings. The petitioner's attempt to offer varying justifications for non-appearance raised doubts about the credibility of the reasons presented, leading to the dismissal of the application for restoration. The Court emphasized the need for transparency and honesty in legal proceedings to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction in Special Statute Matters
The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to special statutes like the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which contain specific provisions limiting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in certain matters. Section 77 of the Act bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits related to assessments made under the Act, emphasizing the exclusivity of the statutory machinery provided for addressing such issues. The petitioner's attempt to convert the Civil Court into an appellate authority over the Act's designated bodies was deemed inappropriate, further highlighting the importance of respecting statutory limitations on the Civil Court's jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, emphasizing the statutory limitations on Civil Courts in matters governed by special statutes and underscoring the need for consistency and transparency in legal proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.

← Previous Next →