TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant/assessee had closed down the business in the year 2011, but the notice was served on the residential address of the Director of the Assessee Company. In as much as the business was closed in the year 2011, there was no trading activity and that the very assessment itself is erroneous. 4. Going through the material on record, the writ Court found that the Director of the petitioner Company had received the notice. Therefore, the Court observed that it is the duty of the assessee to respond to the show cause notice by filing a detailed reply, which the assessee failed. Accordingly, an order of assessment dated 13/3/2015 came to be passed. 5. Holding that the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides for an alternate remedy for filing an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai Central, Chennai, within a period of thirty days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and it is for the appellant to move the Appellate Authority, writ petition has been dismissed. 6. Though Mr.M.Kamalanathan, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the above said submissions, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. As rightly obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others {(2010) 8 SCC 110}, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph Nos.43 to 45, held as follows:- "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they do not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the high Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal Case {Thansigh Nathmal Vs. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419}, Titaghur Paper Mills Case {Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433} and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is crated by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt held as follows:- "The aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court can be summarised as follows:- (i). The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Refer: L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 and S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594. (ii). The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act (Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SC 536. (iii). When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC ....