Court dismisses writ petitions, directs statutory appeals under TNVAT Act. Emphasizes alternate remedy, allows time exclusion.

The court dismissed the writ petitions without expressing any opinion on the merits, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory appeals under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The court emphasized the rule of alternate remedy, citing the need for availing personal hearing opportunities and addressing factual contentions through the statutory appeal process. The court allowed for the exclusion of time spent in the writ petitions for delay condonation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, leaving any remaining delay to be addressed by the Appellate Authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Common factual matrix and assessment years.
2. Pivotal submission regarding personal hearing.
3. Provisions of law under which revised assessment orders were passed.
4. Opportunity of personal hearing.
5. Relegation to alternate remedy of statutory appeal.
6. Delay condonation aspect.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Common Factual Matrix and Assessment Years:
The petitions arise from a common factual matrix under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), concerning seven successive assessment years from 2009-2010 to 2015-2016. Despite various averments and grounds in the affidavits, the core issue remains the same across all petitions.

2. Pivotal Submission Regarding Personal Hearing:
The central argument focused on the lack of personal hearing. The petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, was subjected to deemed assessment under Section 22. Following an inspection by the Enforcement Wing, revisional notices were issued, and objections were filed by the petitioner. Despite opportunities for personal hearing being provided in the revisional notices, the petitioner did not avail them.

3. Provisions of Law Under Which Revised Assessment Orders Were Passed:
The revised assessment orders, though not specifying the provisions, were understood to be passed under Section 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of the TNVAT Act. The relevant proviso requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause but does not mandate a personal hearing, unlike the proviso to Section 22(4).

4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing:
The court noted that the Assessing Officer, using discretion, provided opportunities for personal hearing in both the revisional notices dated 27.01.2017 and 29.12.2018. The petitioner, however, did not attend the hearings or request specific dates and times for them. The petitioner’s affidavits claimed they awaited a notice specifying the hearing date, but this was not articulated in their replies to the revisional notices.

5. Relegation to Alternate Remedy of Statutory Appeal:
The court emphasized the rule of alternate remedy, particularly in tax matters, referencing the Dunlop India case and subsequent Supreme Court judgments. Given the petitioner’s failure to avail personal hearing opportunities and the factual nature of the contentions, the court deemed it appropriate to direct the petitioner to the statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act.

6. Delay Condonation Aspect:
The court acknowledged that the statutory appeal must be filed within 30 days from the service of the order. The petitions were filed within the permissible delay period if the time spent in the writ petitions is excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court allowed this exclusion and directed that any remaining delay be addressed by the Appellate Authority.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits, preserving the petitioner’s right to file statutory appeals. The Appellate Authority is permitted to provide personal hearings and examine all objections. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---