2019 (9) TMI 10 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Mismatch - purchase suppression - case of the writ petitioner is that IEC Code of the writ petitioner has been misused by someone - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned orders on the ground of purchase suppression as the respondent cannot examine the alleged misuse of IEC plea as that plea is within the domain of Customs Commissionerate. It is for the writ petitioner to carry the issue to its logical end with the Customs Commissionerate. This Court is of the considered view that writ petitioner, not being able to demonstrate that they pursued the matter with the concerned authorities in the last 2 years and now be heard to contend that it is for the respondent to furnish details of bills of entry and this Court is convinced that challenge to two impugned orders cannot be predicated on this basis. This Court is also of the considered view that there is no impediment for the writ petitioner to pursue the complaint said to have been given before the Commissionerate and carry the same to its logical end. If the writ petitioner carries the compliant to its logical end and if something favourable to the writ petitioner comes out of the same, documents such as bills of entry and other import particulars, which are subject matter of purchase suppression can always be produced by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Appellate remedy - HELD THAT - There is nothing to demonstrate that the order has been passed without jurisdiction or disregarded settled legal position or without giving an opportunity to writ petitioner to show cause. In other words, the rule of alternate remedy is not a rule of compulsion. It is a rule of discretion. To put it differently, alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule. Suffice to say that there is nothing to demonstrate that this case, more particularly, the impugned orders does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternative remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner. This Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petitions and no ground which warrants interference in the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction has been made out - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for different years.
2. Alleged purchase suppression and misuse of Import Export Code.
3. Availability of alternate statutory remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to two writ petitions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, concerning assessment for different years. The central theme in both petitions is the same, with the only difference being the assessment years. The court noted that the petitions arise from a common factual matrix and proceeded to dispose of both petitions through a common order.

2. The petitions revolve around allegations of purchase suppression and misuse of the Import Export Code (IEC). The Enforcement Wing officials proposed revisions based on their findings during an inspection of the petitioner's business premises. Show cause notices were issued, and revised assessment orders were subsequently passed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the IEC was misused by another party, leading to the alleged purchase suppression. The petitioner requested details of import-related documents to refute the claims, which were not provided by the respondent.

3. The court examined the petitioner's argument regarding the misuse of the IEC and the lack of cooperation from the respondent in providing necessary import details. The court emphasized that the issue of IEC misuse falls under the jurisdiction of the Customs Commissionerate, and the petitioner should pursue the matter through the appropriate channels. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting alternate statutory remedies, citing precedents that advocate applying the rule of alternate remedy rigorously in tax-related matters.

4. Considering the lack of jurisdictional issues or denial of opportunity to the petitioner, the court concluded that the case did not qualify for exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. The judgment directed the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The court also allowed the petitioner to pursue the complaint with the Customs Commissionerate and present any favorable outcomes before the Appellate Authority for consideration.

5. The judgment stressed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and exhausting available remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. It highlighted the need for caution in bypassing statutory remedies, especially in matters concerning revenue and public dues. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioner to raise all grounds before the Appellate Authority if opting for statutory appeals and allowed for the consideration of delay condonation and time exclusion requests during the appellate process.