2017 (11) TMI 863 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses writ appeals challenging assessment proceedings, emphasizes exhausting alternative remedies under Tamil Nadu VAT Act.

M/s. Maruthi Traders Versus Commercial Tax Officer

The court dismissed the writ appeals challenging assessment proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer, emphasizing the need to exhaust alternative ... Maintainability of petition - return of pre-revision notice was issued to the appellant - alternative remedy - writ petitions were dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner, either to seek for rectification of the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Perur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore, respondent herein, by invoking the power under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by filing a petition or to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Held that: - As per Section 51 of the Act, any person objecting to the order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 22, Section 24, Section 26, sub - sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 27, section 28, section 29, section 34 or sub-section (2) of section 40 other than an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, in the manner prescribed, appeal to the Appellate [Deputy] Commissioner having jurisdiction: Provided that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner may, within a further period of thirty days admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the first mentioned period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the first mentioned period. Whereas, in Section 54 of the Act, any person objecting to an order passed Or Proceeding recorded under this Act for which an appeal has not been provided for in section 51 or section 52 may within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order or proceeding was served on him, in the manner prescribed file an application for revision of such order or proceeding to the Joint Commissioner: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may within a further period of thirty days admit an application for revision presented after the expiration of the first mentioned period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not presenting the application within the first mentioned period. If according to the appellant, revision under Section 54 of the Act is the only remedy available to the appellant and not an appeal as indicated, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2007-2008, respectively in the manner provided therefor, under the Statute and that there is no need for this court to say as to whether a revision or appeal, as the case may be, would be the appropriate remedy, which the appellant has to take recourse. Petition dismissed being not maintainable. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to assessment proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer.2. Opportunity to cross-examine parties and personal hearing.3. Exhaustion of alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.4. Applicability of Sections 51, 52, and 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.5. Rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Assessment Proceedings:The appellant filed W.P. Nos. 21322 to 21325 of 2016 challenging the assessment proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer, Perur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore, for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2007-2008. The appellant sought a direction for fresh orders with an opportunity to cross-examine parties and a personal hearing.2. Opportunity to Cross-Examine and Personal Hearing:The writ court observed that the appellant had refused to receive the pre-revision notice and did not cooperate with the department. Despite the appellant's contention of surrendering the Registration Certificate on 30.11.2011, the court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the appellant to seek rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, or to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.3. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies:The court reiterated that writ petitions should not be entertained when effective and alternative remedies are available, especially in revenue matters. Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that the appellant must exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.Notable citations include Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882, which held that litigants should pursue alternative remedies before invoking the High Court's special jurisdiction, and C.A. Ibrahim v. ITO, AIR 1961 SC 609, which underscored the need to exhaust statutory remedies in a hierarchy of appeals.4. Applicability of Sections 51, 52, and 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006:The appellant argued that the appropriate remedy was a revision petition under Section 54 rather than an appeal. The court noted that Sections 51 and 52 provide for appeals against orders by appropriate authorities, and Section 54 allows for revision applications when no appeal is provided. The court stated that it was not necessary to specify whether a revision or appeal was appropriate, as the appellant could challenge the assessment orders in the manner provided under the statute.5. Rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006:The court highlighted Section 84, which allows for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record within six years from the date of the order. The writ court had granted liberty to the appellant to seek rectification or file an appeal against the assessment orders. The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the appellant could resort to the appropriate remedy within the statutory framework.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ appeals, emphasizing the need to exhaust alternative remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The appellant was granted two weeks to resort to the appropriate statutory remedy, whether it be rectification under Section 84 or revision/appeal under Sections 51, 52, or 54.The court directed the registry to return the original assessment orders to the appellant's counsel after obtaining attested copies.Note:This summary maintains the privacy of the parties involved and does not mention any individual names, focusing solely on the legal issues and the court's detailed analysis.