2019 (7) TMI 1009 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy - Validity of revised Assessment Order - Section 51 of TNVAT Act - It is the specific and pointed case of the learned counsel for writ petitioner that the directions of the Appellate Authority have not been adhered to - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court is convinced that directions of the Appellate Authority and principle of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , have not been violated in the instant case. In JKM principle factually the dealer was not given the opportunity of going through the website and the dealer was not provided with copies of invoices. Therefore, grievance of the writ petitioner turns on merits of the matter and it can at best qualify as errors, (if at all), in the impugned order in carrying out this exercise. These can therefore only be grounds for appeal and not for interference in writ jurisdiction. Interference in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternate remedy is a rule of discretion. It is also a self-imposed restraint. In other words it is not a rule of compulsion. Though alternate remedy rule is a rule of discretion and not a rule of compulsion Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA VERSUS SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS 2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT has held that with regard to cases pertaining to taxes, cess etc., i.e., fiscal laws in general, alternate remedy rule has to be applied with utmost rigour. This Court is convinced that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to avail alternate remedy by filing a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. If the writ petitioner chooses to avail the alternate remedy and files a statutory appeal, as the writ petitioner has already paid 25% of the tax liability for preferring the earlier appeal being A.P.No.241 of 2018, which was disposed of on 31.12.2018, appeal that may be filed now shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority (subject of course to limitation and delay condonation if that be the scenario) without insisting on any payment of 25% of tax liability all over again. Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal, uninfluenced by and untrammelled by any view/s expressed in instant order as they are for the limited purpose of disposing of instant writ petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to revised Assessment Order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act).
2. Allegation of non-adherence to directions of the Appellate Authority.
3. Compliance with JKM principle.
4. Consideration of alternate remedy in filing a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case involves the challenge to a revised Assessment Order under the TNVAT Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The writ petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, contests the revised Assessment Order dated 16.05.2019, raising concerns regarding the assessment process.

2. The petitioner alleges non-adherence to the directions of the Appellate Authority in the appeal process. The Appellate Authority had specified that the burden of proof lies on the assessing officer to furnish details of all purchase invoices before taking action under the TNVAT Act. The petitioner argues that these directions were not followed by the respondent.

3. Another aspect of the case involves the compliance with the JKM principle, which emphasizes providing the dealer with the opportunity to review purchase invoices through the departmental website. The petitioner claims that the JKM principle was not adhered to in this instance, leading to a dispute over the fairness of the assessment process.

4. The judgment considers the application of the alternate remedy rule in fiscal laws, as highlighted in previous Supreme Court decisions. It emphasizes the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The court directs the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal process under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, ensuring that the appeal will be entertained without requiring a new payment of the tax liability already settled in the previous appeal.

In conclusion, the court dismisses the writ petition, urging the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal route while emphasizing the significance of exhausting statutory remedies in matters concerning fiscal laws. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues raised, focusing on procedural compliance and the application of legal principles in tax assessment cases.