9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logical end. If the writ petitioner carries the compliant to its logical end and if something favourable to the writ petitioner comes out of the same, documents such as bills of entry and other import particulars, which are subject matter of purchase suppression can always be produced by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Appellate remedy - HELD THAT:- There is nothing to demonstrate that the order has been passed without jurisdiction or disregarded settled legal position or without giving an opportunity to writ petitioner to show cause. In other words, the rule of alternate remedy is not a rule of compulsion. It is a rule of discretion. To put it differently, alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule. Suffice to say that there is nothing to demonstrate that this case, more particularly, the impugned orders does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternative remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner. This Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent to the writ petitioner. On receipt of such notices, writ petitioner has sent a reply on 08.11.2018. After considering the reply of the writ petitioner and after taking into account the objections raised by the writ petitioner, the respondent passed two separate revised assessment orders bearing Reference Nos. 'TIN No.33560282102/2013-14 and TIN No.33560282102/2015-16, both dated 11.03.2019'. These two revised Assessment Orders shall hereinafter be referred to in this order as 'impugned orders' in plural and 'impugned order' in singular. 8. It is informed without any disputation or disagreement that impugned orders have been made under Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act. 9. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is no doubt in the business activity of import and with regard to alleged suppression, which is one of the grounds, on which impugned orders have been passed, writ petitioner's 'Import Export Code' ('IEC') has been misused and the writ petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 11.12.2017 with the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Custom House, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamine the alleged misuse of IEC plea as that plea is within the domain of Customs Commissionerate. It is for the writ petitioner to carry the issue to its logical end with the Customs Commissionerate. This Court is of the considered view that writ petitioner, not being able to demonstrate that they pursued the matter with the concerned authorities in the last 2 years and now be heard to contend that it is for the respondent to furnish details of bills of entry and this Court is convinced that challenge to two impugned orders cannot be predicated on this basis. 16. Be that as it may, this Court is also of the considered view that there is no impediment for the writ petitioner to pursue the complaint said to have been given before the Commissionerate and carry the same to its logical end. If the writ petitioner carries the compliant to its logical end and if something favourable to the writ petitioner comes out of the same, documents such as bills of entry and other import particulars, which are subject matter of purchase suppression can always be produced by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority. 17. This Court reminds itself of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] has held that when it comes to matters pertaining to Taxes, CESS, Revenue etc., the rule of alternate remedy has to be applied with utmost rigour. This Satyawati Tondon principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case [Authorized Officer, State Bank of 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 overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional Customs Commissionerate and carry the same to its logical end and place the same before the Appellate Authority in furthering the writ petitioner's case. If this happens, the jurisdictional Appellate Authority shall consider the findings of the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate and pass suitable orders qua suppression. 22. Though obvious, it is open to the writ petitioner to seek condonation of delay under Section 51 of TNVAT Act 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 pleas/prayers for condonation of delay and/or exclusion of time spent in the instant writ petition by placing reliance on Section 14 of Limitation Act, such pleas/prayers of writ petitioner shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority on their own merits. 23. In the light of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petitions and no ground which warrants interference in the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction has been made out. Therefore, writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
