TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions were barred by the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006; (ii) whether the assessment orders and the order rejecting the post-assessment representation could be sustained when the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity and the matter required reconsideration on merits.
Issue (i): whether the writ petitions were barred by the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Analysis: The availability of an alternate remedy does not create an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ interference remains permissible where the action of the authority is unfair, unreasonable, perverse, without jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice. A refusal to entertain the writ solely on the ground of alternate remedy, without examining whether any such exception applies, is not legally correct.
Conclusion: The bar of alternate remedy did not preclude writ interference in the facts of the case.
Issue (ii): whether the assessment orders and the order rejecting the post-assessment representation could be sustained when the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity and the matter required reconsideration on merits.
Analysis: The reopening related to old assessment years, the assessee was a Central Government organisation, and the record showed repeated requests for time and later production of materials. Even if the authority proceeded ex parte, the assessment had to reflect an independent application of mind and reasons supporting the demand. The post-assessment representation, though treated as a petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, was not dealt with after affording a meaningful hearing. Since the counter-affidavit showed that the issues involved factual scrutiny, the proper course was a fresh adjudication after notice and personal hearing.
Conclusion: The assessment orders, the rejection of the representation, and the consequential recovery notice could not be sustained and the matter had to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternate statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is procedurally unfair or violative of natural justice, and an assessment affecting civil liability must be made on an independent and reasoned consideration after affording a fair hearing.
TaxTMI 
