TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... oil and neem oil cake. In order to manufacture neem oil and oil cake, the petitioner has to purchase neem oil seeds and it was only after crushing the oil seeds, that neem oil cakes have to be manufactured. The sale of neem oil is taxable, whereas the sale of neem oil cake was exempted from the liability of payment of tax, since it was treated as organic manure as per the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai. The second respondent, as per notice dated December 31, 2007, called upon the petitioner to pay interest under section 24(3) of the Act with respect to the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued by the assessing officer before passing the impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that they came to know of the details and as such, they were precluded from filing their objection before the first respondent. In such circumstances, they have filed the writ petition to quash the impugned order. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner had availed interest-free sales tax loan under deferral scheme and as she has repaid the deferral dues beyond the due date for repayment, she was liable to pay the penal interest. According to the second respondent, levy of interest was automatic and as such, there was no question of issuance of notice or giving opportunity to the assessee to submit their objection. In such view of the matter, the second respondent justified the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner has not been provided by the second respondent. However, very strangely, by way of the impugned order dated March 31, 2008, all the information sought for by the petitioner was furnished. However, in the impugned order dated March 31, 2008, the first respondent has stated that notices were issued to the petitioner before passing the order quantifying interest. But, it was not the case of the second respondent in his order dated February 12, 2008 and the said authority maintained that there was no requirement to issue notice before quantifying the amount of interest. Section 24(3) mandates that the assessee has to pay interest, in case the tax amount was paid belatedly. The sales tax amount is admittedly a charge on the property of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as such, there was no justification for bypassing the alternative remedy. In Committee of Management v. Vice Chancellor [2008] 16 SCALE 310, the Supreme Court held that the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar, when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and observed thus: "21. Furthermore, when an order has been passed by an authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the superior courts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although there exists an alternative remedy. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the observations made by this court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai [1998] 8 SCC 1: '15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of interest and in fact, no such notice was also issued. In such circumstances, I am of the view that there was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and as such, the petitioner was justified in filing the writ petition without filing the statutory revision. The issue could have been resolved long back, in case the second respondent has observed the principles of natural justice by issuing a notice before passing the order dated December 31, 2007. The information sought for by the petitioner was also given only by the first respondent and that too, by way of the order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. On a careful consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view ....