9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 453 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Revision of assessment - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - the objections given by the writ petitioner have not been considered by the second respondent in passing the impugned order - principles of natural justice - Whether the objections have been considered comprehensively and whether the manner in which the objections have been considered is acceptable in law? - HELD THAT - There is no dispute before this Court that an alternate remedy is available to the writ petitioner i.e., by way of an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. With regard to alternate remedy, from a long line of authorities it comes out clearly that alternate remedy is not an absolute rule. It is not a rule of compulsion, but it is a rule of discretion. This Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy by way of appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Compliance with directions of the High Court in a previous order. 2. Consideration of objections by the assessing authority. 3. Applicability of deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. 4. Availability and discretion in seeking alternate remedy of appeal. Compliance with High Court Directions: The case involved a writ petition arising under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner had previously challenged an Assessment Order for the year 2015-16, leading to the High Court setting aside the order and remitting the matter back for reassessment. The current dispute emerged from the subsequent assessment order dated 07.05.2019, which the petitioner contested. Consideration of Objections: The primary contention raised by the petitioner was the alleged failure of the assessing authority to consider the objections presented during the reassessment process. The petitioner argued that the objections were not addressed in accordance with the directions of the High Court and cited a Supreme Court case to support their position. However, the Revenue counsel contended that the objections were duly taken into account, as evidenced by the records of the proceedings. Deemed Assessment and Best Judgment Assessment: The Revenue counsel argued that the petitioner had not fulfilled the statutory obligation of filing monthly returns under Section 21 of the TNVAT Act, which precluded the application of deemed assessment under Section 22(2). The petitioner, on the other hand, suggested that even in the absence of deemed assessment, the assessing authority should have resorted to best judgment assessment under Section 22(4) due to alleged escapement of assessment. Alternate Remedy of Appeal: The High Court emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy through an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. While acknowledging the discretion in utilizing alternate remedies, the Court highlighted the stringent application of this rule in fiscal law matters based on Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal route, with the option to seek condonation of any delays. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, underscoring the importance of availing the statutory appeal mechanism for addressing grievances related to the assessment process under the TNVAT Act. The judgment emphasized the significance of complying with legal obligations, considering objections raised during assessments, and utilizing available alternate remedies in matters concerning fiscal laws.
|
