Court dismisses writ petition, preserves appeal rights under TNVAT Act. Emphasizes alternate remedies, excludes writ time from limitation.

The court dismissed the writ petition, preserving the petitioner's right to pursue an appeal under the TNVAT Act. The court emphasized the availability of alternate remedies and directed the exclusion of time spent in the writ proceedings from the limitation period for filing an appeal. The court clarified that standard appeal procedures, including pre-deposit conditions, would apply if the petitioner opts for an appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (NJP) due to lack of personal hearing.
2. Consideration of the detailed reply to the show-cause notice.
3. Errors in the computation made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Dependence on the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (NJP) due to lack of personal hearing:
The petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed, which is claimed to be a violation of NJP. The court examined whether personal hearing is statutorily imperative under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act. The court noted that Section 27(1) requires a "reasonable opportunity to show cause" rather than a "reasonable opportunity of being heard," which is required under Section 22(4). The court concluded that personal hearing is not mandatory under Section 27(1) unless the nature of the issue necessitates it. Moreover, the petitioner did not demonstrate any prejudice caused due to the lack of personal hearing.

2. Consideration of the detailed reply to the show-cause notice:
The petitioner contended that their detailed reply to the show-cause notice was not considered. The court reviewed the impugned order and found that the reply had indeed been considered, as the order referenced the reply and addressed specific points raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the court held that the reply was duly considered, and no violation of NJP occurred on this ground.

3. Errors in the computation made by the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner claimed there were errors in the computation made by the Assessing Officer. The court determined that such errors are grounds for appeal and should be addressed through the statutory appellate process rather than in writ jurisdiction. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the computation errors, leaving it to the Appellate Authority to address these issues.

4. Dependence on the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing:
The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer improperly relied on the proposal from the Enforcement Wing. The court noted that while the proposal from the Enforcement Wing was the genesis for the revision, the Assessing Officer independently applied her mind to the show-cause notice, the reply, and the documents submitted. The court found no violation of the principle established in Narasus Roller Flour Mills vs. Commercial Tax Officer, which requires independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Alternate Remedy:
The court emphasized the principle that alternate remedy is a rule of discretion, especially in tax matters, where it should be applied with utmost rigor. The court noted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. The court also provided relief by allowing the exclusion of the time spent in the writ petition from the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, preserving the right of the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of a statutory appeal. The court directed that the time spent in the writ proceedings be excluded from the limitation period for filing the appeal. The court also clarified that all conditions and procedures for the appeal under the TNVAT Act and Rules, including pre-deposit conditions, would apply if the petitioner chooses to appeal.

---