TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bruary 23, 2001 and July 31, 2002, respectively. It is further submitted that the place of the business of the petitioners was inspected, on December 17, 2004, and a statement was recorded. Apart from the verification, the details of purchases made from M/s. Aashana Enterprises and M/s. Kamalesh Enterprises were verified. Thereafter, the inspecting authorities had once again verified the purchases and sales, on February 7, 2005, and the petitioner had filed the copies of the records and other details, including the written submissions, dated February 14, 2005. It is further submitted that the respondent had proposed to revise the assessment order and had sought to levy tax, under section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on purchases made from M/s. Aashana Enterprises and M/s. Kamalesh Enterprises making an assessment on deemed sale value and levied penalty, under sections 16(2) and 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The petitioner had filed interim objections, dated March 6, 2005 and November 26, 2005, respectively, for both the assessment years requesting the respondent to furnish the copies of the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the petitioners have been constrained to file the above writ petitions raising various grounds stating that, "(a) the order passed without furnishing copies of the records relied upon and providing an opportunity of cross-examination is against the principles of natural justice and fair play and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court. (b) the respondent ought to have initiated action against the witnesses for failing to appear for cross-examination in pursuance to the statutory summons issued to them instead of confirming the proposal on flimsy grounds. (c) the petitioner having discharged the burden of proof in support of their purchases at the time of the original assessment proceedings and in the case of revision of assessment, the burden is on the respondent as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (d) the department, having accepted the sales and purchase made by the sellers and passed the assessment orders, had erred in disallowing the purchases in the hands of the purchasers like the petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder. (e) as per section 4 of the Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [2005] 142 STC 1, which had been followed by the First Bench of this court in its decision in Sree Murugan Engineering Products v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore [2006] 148 STC 419 (Mad), to point out that the question of alternative remedy would not arise when the action initiated by the respondents are under certain provisions of law which are ultra vires or when the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had placed reliance on the various decisions of this court, including certain orders passed by this court, to show that the assessment of tax and penalty made by the assessing authority, relying only upon the statements given by some persons and without affording an opportunity of cross-examining such persons by the affected parties, were invalid in law as being contrary to the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on an order passed by a learned single judge of this court, dated November 7, 2006, made in W.P. Nos. 41902 to 41905 of 2006, wherein the impugned assessment orders were set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. 24.. Where under a statue there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute'." Per contra, Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the burden of proof that any transaction or turnover of the dealer is not liable to tax shall lie on such dealer only. If a dealer claims that he is not liable to tax on the ground that the sales or purchases are second sales or purchases, he is bound to show that there was an earlier taxable sale or purchase. Since it was found that the purchases effected by the dealers from M/s. Aashana Enterprises and M/s. Kamalesh Enterprises were not genuine and that the dealers had fabricated the records, in order to evade the demand of tax, in such circumstances, it was proposed to revise the assessment, under sections 7A and 16 of the Act, and to impose a penalty on the tax due. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), appearing on behalf of the respondent, had submitted that the First Bench of this court, while dealing with matters which were similar to those in the above writ petitions, had by its order, dated June 22, 2006, made in Writ Appeal Nos. 749 and 750 of 2006 and Writ Petition Nos. 17575 and 17576 of 2006, held as follows: "Learned counsel for the appellant in these two appeals states that the appellant will resort to the remedy of appeal as per the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent and on analysing the records available, it is clear that the First Bench of this court, while considering the issues involved in cases arising under similar facts and circumstances, had permitted the petitioners therein to file statutory appeals, within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order, on condition that the petitioner deposits 25 per cent of the tax component demanded. On such condition being complied with, the respondent had been directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits, without raising the issue of limitation. It was also stated that in case the appeals were not filed by the petitioners therein, the Government would be at liberty to recover the tax as per the impugned orders. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on analysing the cases cited and in view of the facts and circumstances in which the present writ petitions have arisen, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have an alternate appellate remedy in accordanc....