9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough, the appellant/assessee has sought for reversal of the common order impugned, it not correct to interfere with the same. It is always open to the appellant, to prefer statutory appeals as directed by the writ Court. While sustaining the orders impugned, the assessee are permitted to prefer statutory appeals to the appellate authority, if so advised - appeal dismissed. - W.A.Nos.1240 & 1241 of 2018 CMP Nos.10216 & 10217 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2018 - S. Manikumar And Subramonium Prasad, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Adithya Reddy For the Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu JUDGMENT ( Order of the Court was delivered by S. Manikumar, J. ) Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 12.10.2017 made in W.P.Nos.25132 25133, filed to quash the assessment orders, for the years 2002-03 and 2005-06, respectively, in TNGST 3075094/2002-03 dated 27.07.2017 and 3075094/2005-06 dated 11.08.2017, on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Periya Agraharam Circle, Erode, Erode District. 2. Short facts leading to the appeals are that the appellant/petitioner is engaged in dyeing works contracts purchasing dyes and chemicals, both intra state as well as int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that they have not expressed any opinion with regard the the contention of the dealer that they wish to raise additional queries before the appropriate forum. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition, the dealer in the said case has filed additional grounds in Tax Case (Revision) No.69 of 2009 and 80 and 81 of 2011 and the same is pending. Firstly, the said decision does not relate to the petitioner, but concerns some other dealer. Furthermore, there is nothing placed on record to show that the said additional grounds have been entertained by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of S.S.M.Processing Mills. Even assuming it was entertained, unless the decision is rendered on those additional grounds and if the same is in favour of the dealer, then alone the petitioner would be entitled to convass those grounds challenging the impugned orders. Thus, as on date, the judgment of the Divisional Bench in the case of S.S.M. Processing Mills has attained finality and holds the field. Therefore, the present attempt of the petitioner to argue contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, the pendency of the said case is directly relevant for the present proceedings. (iii). The learned single judge has held that only if the additional grounds filed by M/s.S.S.M. Processing Mills pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are entertained and allowed by this Hon'ble Court, will the petitioner be entitled to raise those grounds. This premise is not correct in as much as any alternative remedy availed by the petitioner during the pendency of the additional grounds filed by M/s.S.S.M. Processing Mills would only be an empty formality. The appellate authority would be bound to follow the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s.S.S.M. Processing Mills when this Hon'ble Court is seized of additional grounds raised by the said assesse. It is not the case of the petitioner that the judgment reported in 69 VST 455 has not attained finality but the petitioner only seeks to pray that this Hon'ble Court exercise its discretion and hold that alternative remedy is not a bar to the petitioner approaching this Hon'ble Court since the Hon'ble Court is already seized of the identical questions of law. The Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that thereafter, Tax Case (Revision) have been permitted and pending on the file of this Court. He further submitted that details of the component viz., dyes used in bleaching / works contract, and quantum of tax liable to be paid, for the said component, are not set out in both the assessment orders. 9. Attention of this Court was also brought to a recent decision in State of Tamilnadu Vs. Vanavil Colours, reported in (2017) 104 VST 309 (Madras) wherein a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while confirming the liability to pay tax, set aside the penalty, following a decision of this Court in State of Tamilnadu Vs. Jansons Textiles Process, reported in (2014) 69 VST 443 (Madras). 10. Considering the challenge, Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxex) was put on notice. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. The issue as to whether the respondent in the assessment orders, for the years 2002-03 and 2005-06, has to specifically give the details, of the extent of dyes used in bleaching / works contract and consequently, the quantum of liability to pay tax, in the case of wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.Pandey and Another (2005) 8 SCC 264, at para No.11 are as follows: Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction or discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the high Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. (iv) In United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others {(2010) 8 SCC 110}, the Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... {(2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 337}, the Honourable Apex Court held that, An alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute are under challenge. The Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. However, the high Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal or grievance still holds the field. (vi) The Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering a catena of cases, in Shauntlabai Derkar and Another Vs. Maroti Dewaji Wadaskar {(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 602}, at para Nos.15 to 18, held as follows:- 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial demand notices issued thereon. 18. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal Vs. Union of India {W.P.(c) No.44 of 2009, decided on 5/10/2010}. We grant liberty to the respondent, if he so desires, to file an appropriate petition/appeal against the orders of reassessment passed under Section 148 of the Act within four weeks' time from today. If the petition is filed before the appellate authority within the time granted by this Court, the appellate authority within the time granted by this Court, the appellate authority shall consider the petition only on merits without any reference to the period of limitation. However, it is clarified that the appellate authority shall not be influenced by any observation made by the High Court while disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No.44 of 2009, in its judgment and order dated 5/10/2010. (vii) After considering a plethora of judgments, in Union of India and Others Vs.Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another {(2015) 6 SCC 773}, at para36, the Apex Court held as follows:- The aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court can be summaris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
