9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its have been granted to the assessee. In view of the foregoing reasons the order of the Tribunal declaring section 6(4) of 2002 Act as unconstitutional is not correct. The said order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for - Writ Petition No. 34179 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2007 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. AND CHITRA VENKATARAMAN , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. The writ petition is filed by the Revenue seeking the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the second respondent, i.e., Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal pertaining to its order dated April 30, 2003 in O.P. No. 994 of 2002(1) and to quash the same. Before the Special Tribunal, the first respondent-dealer filed original petition seeking the relief of declaration to declare that sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act ) is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and thereby unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires. The above relief was sought in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated April 30, 2003(1) allowed the original petition by holding that section 6(4) of the 2002 Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue in this writ petition. The Government Pleader has contended that the reasoning of the Special Tribunal that when the amount under section 6(1) of the 2002 Act has to be determined strictly in accordance with the rates specified under section 7, it is implied that any amount paid in excess of the determination made under section 7, has to be refunded to the applicant. He further contended that when there is a specific provision under section 6(4) of the 2002 Act prohibiting the refund of the excess amount, there is no scope for any implication that the excess amount should be refunded to the assessee. However, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee argued for sustaining the order of the Tribunal. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. The State Government having regard to the fact that several crores of revenue due to the Government have been locked up in litigation at various stages thought it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the regular appellate authority and the other hierarchy of the authority as provided in the parent Act, viz., TNGST Act. The alternate method of resolution of dispute under the 2002 Act is only optional. The provision also restricts the application of the Act only in respect of the assessees, whose appeals or revisions are pending before the statutory authorities under the TNGST Act and the assessees are entitled to file an application under the 2002 Act within three months from the date of commencement of the Act. There is no compulsion on the part of the assessee even when the appeals and revisions are pending during the relevant period, to opt for settlement of dispute. It is wholly within the choice and pleasure of the assessees. If the assessee thinks it is beneficial for him to resolve the dispute under the 2002 Act, then the assessee would be governed by the provisions of the Act. Having voluntarily and with full knowledge of the features of the method of resolution, opted to be governed by it, the assessee cannot be heard to question the validity of the sub-section. The dispute resolution method under the 2002 Act is hassle-free, in the sense, there need not be long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nits and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry', that exact wisdom and nice adaption of remedy are not always possible and that 'judgment is largely a prophecy based on meagre and uninterpreted experience'. Every legislation, particularly in economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method 'and therefore' it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses. There may be crudities and inequities in complicated experimental economic legislation but on that account alone it cannot be struck down as invalid. The courts cannot, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court in Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Reig Refining Company [1950] 94 L. Ed. 381, be converted into Tribunals for relief from such crudities and inequities . . . If any crudities, inequities or possibilities of abuse come to light, the Legislature can always step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the Legislature in dealing with complex economic issues. When comparable provisions of sub-sections (7) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
