2022 (1) TMI 664 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to show cause before the impugned orders were made - alleged mismatch qua ITC (Input Tax Credit) - non-verification of dealer at the other end by Assessing Officer-respondent - HELD THAT - This Court having set out the reasons for not acceding to the prayer of the writ petitioner now sets out infra the conclusion and that is the captioned writ petition fails. It is made clear that if the writ petitioner chooses to file statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act it will be open to the Appellate Authority to consider the same (subject to limitation and subject to pre-deposit condition if any) on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment orders under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for two consecutive years challenged. Lack of reasonable opportunity to show cause and alleged mismatch in Input Tax Credit verification raised as grounds for challenge.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged two assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for consecutive years. The main contentions were the lack of a reasonable opportunity to show cause and the alleged mismatch in Input Tax Credit verification.

2. The petitioner argued that they were not given a fair chance to present their case before the assessment orders were issued. However, the court noted that notices for personal hearings were sent on two occasions, but the petitioner did not respond to them. The court emphasized that personal hearing is discretionary, not mandatory, as established in previous case law.

3. Regarding the mismatch verification issue, the court found that the respondent had conducted some verification based on available records and departmental resources. The court referenced the JKM Graphics principle but concluded that the petitioner's failure to respond to the notices weakened their argument.

4. The court highlighted the principle of alternate remedy, emphasizing that the petitioner had the option to appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. Citing various case laws, including Dunlop India and Satyawati Tandon, the court stressed the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.

5. The court referred to the Commercial Steel Limited case, which outlined exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. However, in the present case, no exceptional circumstances were found to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. The court noted the lack of fundamental rights breach or natural justice violation.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had not provided adequate explanations for not availing the opportunities given. The court advised the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal process without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment. No costs were awarded in the case.

7. In conclusion, the court rejected the petitioner's claims, highlighting the importance of following statutory procedures and exhausting alternate remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the significance of providing explanations and availing opportunities given during the assessment process.