9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the statutory appeal i.e., alternate remedy, has to be preferred within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 was received by the writ petitioner on 09.05.2019. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, there is a provision for Appellate Authority to condone delay albeit subject to a cap of 30 days. In other words, there is a cap of 30 days. The writ petitioner is well within this 30 days. This Court is not interfering with the impugned order in the light of alternate remedy or in other word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutiny as part of random scrutiny and summons dated 19.07.2018 bearing reference TIN/33580988057/2013-14 was issued. d) Writ petitioner, admittedly, did not respond to the summons, as can be culled out from the case file placed before this Court. e) Thereafter, a summons captioned 'Intimation Notice for the Confirmation of Order' dated 29.03.2019 bearing reference TIN/33580988057/2013-14 was issued. This also did not evoke any reply or response from writ petitioner. To be noted, relevant Financial year, which is also Assessment Year is 2013-14. f) Ultimately, the respondent passed an order dated 30.04.2019 bearing reference TIN/33580988057/2013-14 (hereinafter 'impugned order& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed as part of case file. From the perusal of the same, this Court finds that there is no medical report to the effect that writ petitioner was advised bed rest. There is no medical report to the effect that writ petitioner could not attend to his day-to-day work. Even if there is such a medical report, it is for the writ petitioner to make necessary alternate arrangements. 6. Be that as it may, it was also submitted that the aforesaid summons and intimation notice have been issued proposing revision under Section 27(1)(2) of TNVAT Act and therefore, the penalty imposed vide the impugned order is impermissible. This Court considers it appropriate to leave this question open in the light of alternate remedy available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 128, Paras 43 55) 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o brought to the notice of this Court that the statutory appeal i.e., alternate remedy, has to be preferred within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 was received by the writ petitioner on 09.05.2019. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, there is a provision for Appellate Authority to condone delay albeit subject to a cap of 30 days. In other words, there is a cap of 30 days. The writ petitioner is well within this 30 days. 11. In the aforesaid scenario, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order: a) This Court is not interfering with the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
