9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 51 of TNVAT Act is also an authority which can deal with facts and therefore, all questions that are raised by writ petitioner in the instant cases are left open for writ petitioner to be raised before the appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority can examine the matter on facts and on the merits of the grounds raised therein. To be noted, this is in the light of the language in which the appeal provision i.e., Section 51 of TNVAT Act is couched. Time frame for filing appeal - HELD THAT:- If there is any delay, it is open to the writ petitioner to seek condonation of delay as well as exclusion of time spent in the instant writ petition by relying on Section Section 14 of Limitation Act. If the writ petitioner makes such p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1009096/2010-11 is the impugned order in W.P.No.18675 of 2019. This Court is informed that the impugned order in the second writ petition under CST Act is consequential to the impugned order in the first writ petition under TNVAT Act. This Court is also informed that both the writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix. 5. Writ petitioner is a dealer inter alia under TNVAT Act and there was self assessment i.e., monthly returns being filed under Section 21 of TNVAT Act and there was deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. 6. Under such circumstances, respondent passed revised assessment order dated 07.10.2016 under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act adopting best judgment met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections. To this, writ petitioner sent a reply dated 26.05.2017, enclosing certain documents under eight different heads, which were required to be submitted vide 28.04.2017 notice. It was writ petitioner's specific case that with regard to serial Nos.1 to 3, documents were produced and with regard to serial Nos.4 to 8, it was submitted that for the purpose of claiming 'Input Tax Credit' ('ITC' for brevity) under TNVAT Act, those documents are not required. In this regard, reliance was placed on Section 19(1) of TNVAT Act and Rule 10(2) of TNVAT Rules 2007. 10. According to learned counsel for writ petitioner, respondent has completely lost sight of the fact that delivery being proved aspect will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing was also offered in the notice for production of records as per orders of Honourable High Court of Madras. The dealer has not utilized the opportunity for production of original records. They have not maintained any stock register and not produced for verification.' 17. To be noted, Revenue Counsel points out that writ petitioner sent reply on 26.05.2017 and the impugned order came to be passed only on 18.04.2018, almost one year later. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid by learned counsel for writ petitioner that personal hearing has not been granted. In this regard, an order made by this Court being order dated 19.06.2019 in W.P.No.16719 of 2019 etc., was pressed into service by writ petitioner. That order cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85] . Relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.' ( Underlining made by Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 22. In the instant case, there is no disputation or disagreement that there is alternate remedy and it is nobody's case that it is not efficacious or ineffective. In other words, it is nobody's case that alternate remedy is ineffectual or not efficacious. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy. This Court has also reminded itself that this is the second round of litigation at the original authority stage itself. 23. Be that as it may, appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
