Court upholds validity of TNVAT revisional orders, directs petitioner to pursue statutory appeal

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging revisional/re-assessment orders under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act for various assessment years. It held that the impugned orders were validly made under the Act, emphasizing the availability of an alternate remedy through a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to respond to a crucial personal hearing notice, weakening their position. The petitioner was directed to pursue the alternate remedy, subject to pre-deposit and limitation conditions, with a reminder for the Appellate Authority to decide the appeals independently.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of revisional/re-assessment orders under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act).
2. Compliance with previous court directions regarding mismatch cases.
3. Opportunity for personal hearing.
4. Availability and appropriateness of alternate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Revisional/Re-assessment Orders under Section 27 of TNVAT Act:
The six writ petitions challenge the revisional/re-assessment orders dated 21.04.2021 under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act for different assessment years. The petitioner contended that the orders were not in accordance with the directions given by the court in a previous common order dated 15.03.2018. The court noted that the impugned orders were indeed made under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, and there was no disputation regarding the provision of law under which these orders were made.

2. Compliance with Previous Court Directions Regarding Mismatch Cases:
The petitioner argued that the impugned orders did not comply with the directions given in the previous common order, particularly regarding the mismatch issue. The petitioner claimed that if the dealer at the far end had not paid the tax, the petitioner should not be penalized. The court acknowledged this argument but highlighted that the petitioner did not respond to the personal hearing notice, which was crucial for examining the mismatch issue.

3. Opportunity for Personal Hearing:
The court observed that personal hearing is not statutorily imperative for assessment of escaped turnover or wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. However, in this case, the respondent had offered a personal hearing via a communication dated 11.02.2021, which the petitioner failed to attend. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s non-response to the personal hearing notice weakened their position.

4. Availability and Appropriateness of Alternate Remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act:
The court stressed the availability of an alternate remedy by way of a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. It was noted that the impugned orders themselves mentioned this appeal remedy. The court referred to several precedents, including the Dunlop India case, Satyawati Tandon case, and K.C. Mathew case, to underline that the alternate remedy rule should be applied rigorously in fiscal statutes. The court concluded that the petitioner should pursue the alternate remedy, as the case did not fall under any exceptions that would justify bypassing this statutory procedure.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue the alternate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, subject to pre-deposit and limitation conditions. The court made it clear that the Appellate Authority should deal with the appeals on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---