2019 (8) TMI 158 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - grant of one more opportunity to go before the Assessing Officer - limitation period prescribed for availing appeal remedy was over - HELD THAT - The campaign against the impugned order comes to an end, but it was contended that there are certain factual disputes qua impugned order which turn on merits of the matter. If that be the case, it is open to the writ petitioner to avail appeal remedy by filing an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner inter alia under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. Alternate remedy - HELD THAT - It is no doubt a self imposed restriction by this Court. There can also be no disputation that alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule. In other words, it is not a rule of compulsion, but it is a rule of discretion - What follows as an inevitable and indisputable sequitur is that alternate remedy, which though a rule of discretion and though a self imposed restriction, has to be applied with utmost rigour when it comes to fiscal laws. This Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to the alternate remedy of an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for Assessment Year 2011-12; Interpretation of Section 3(4)(b) of TNVAT Act; Availability of alternate remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, had previously challenged a revised Assessment Order and was directed by the court to pay a portion of the tax demanded and submit objections for a fresh assessment. Subsequently, a revised Assessment Order was passed, leading to the current writ petition.

The primary submission in the current petition was that the Assessing Officer missed the date on which Section 3(4)(b) of the TNVAT Act came into force. The petitioner argued that the provision was in effect from 01.04.2006, while the Revenue contended it was effective from 01.04.2012. The court noted the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim and upheld the Revenue's position regarding the effective date of the provision.

Regarding the availability of an alternate remedy, the court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies, especially in matters concerning taxes and revenue. Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the court highlighted the need to apply the rule of alternate remedy rigorously in fiscal laws. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act.

The judgment clarified that while the petitioner could pursue the alternate remedy, they could also file for condonation of delay and seek exclusion of time spent in the writ petition under the Limitation Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, preserving the petitioner's right to avail the alternate remedy and allowing all grounds raised in the petition to be presented before the Appellate Authority. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.