Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (1) TMI 1290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it pass produced along with the reply affidavit. We hasten to add that these are questions which have to be agitated before the appellate authority, and the writ petition is not a proper remedy. Appeal dismissed.
RAO V.V.S. AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN JJ. J. Prabhakar for the petitioner P. Balaji Varma, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, for the respondents ORDER This group of six writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. Economic Transport Organisation Limited is engaged in the business of transporting goods. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment orders-cum-demand notices dated August 20, 2010, they filed these writ petitions on December 20, 2010. The impugned orders were passed by the first respondent herein under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ("the VATAct") demanding value added tax. At the outset we may notice the fact of the matter from W.P.No. 31979 of 2010 which is similar in other cases as well. The petitioner engaged vehicle bearing No. AP-16-X-6147 for transporting goods, i.e., basilite tunspray from Salem in Tamil Nadu to Jamshedpur in Jharkhand. As it was passing through the State of Andhra Pradesh, the vehic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner to file objections to the proposed assessment. The said notice was sent by registered post acknowledgement due. On May 13, 2009, the same was returned unserved with an endorsement, "left". A reminder dated July 5, 2010, was also sent to the petitioner. As there was no response the first respondent passed the impugned order, and sent it to the petitioner on August 24, 2010 by registered post acknowledgement due which was received by the petitioner. They filed letter dated September 6, 2010, stating that they had received the order-cum-demand on September 2, 2010, and that their vehicle had crossed the exit check-post on August 28, 2006. The petitioner filed reply affidavit admitting that, even after the representation was returned along with check notes, they could not resubmit the appeal in the manner required under law. While denying the counter averment that the driver did not deliver the transit pass at the exit checkpost, the petitioner admits that the notice was issued to the owner of the goods vehicle, and that the petitioner's office at Hyderabad received the impugned order dated September 6, 2010. The officials from the Hyderabad office contacted the h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. Be that as it is, after receiving the same, the second respondent issued check notes returning the same advising them to file the appeal in proper form duly rectifying the defects. In this background, it is rather difficult to accept the submission of the counsel that the petitioner's representation does not bar the writ petition. Though it was not presented in the proper form, it would certainly amount to the petitioner availing of the remedy under the VATAct. Further the second respondent himself treated the representation as an appeal, and returned the same requiring rectification of the mistakes. On this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice does not, in the present case, justify invocation of the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is no doubt true that when principles of natural justice are not followed, alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain the writ petition. In tax matters, however, the ground of violation of principles of natural justice can as well be raised before the appellate authority rather than before the High Court. In an unreported judgment in F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to grant judicial review of the initial decision.' (emphasis supplied) The legal position is that interference by the court, ignoring the appellate mechanism, depends on what is fair in the circumstances of particular case, and what is the statutory scheme itself that mandates the procedural fairness including compliance with natural justice. If the statute itself curtails or excludes natural justice with or without limitations, it is a sure test to deny judicial review. For instance, the statute may empower the quasi-judicial body to give a personal hearing only when asked for. If the civil consequences are not drastic, the statute may mandate only 'hearing by representation in writing' which itself would be sufficient compliance with natural justice (see Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1966 SC 671, Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter AIR 1971 SC 1093 and Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India [1989] 65 Comp Cas 227; [1988] 4 SCC 1)." The counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice a photocopy of the transit pass in support of the contention that the vehicle left ICP, Naraharipuram on August 25, 2006, passed through the exit ICP .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates