AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are different. To be noted, both writ petitions arise under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' ('TNVAT Act' for brevity). 'W.P.No.18676 of 2019' shall be referred to as 'first writ petition' and 'W.P.No.18694 of 2019' shall be referred to as 'second writ petition'. 6. As mentioned supra, this Court is informed that facts are common. While the first writ petition pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12, the second writ petition pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. In the first writ petition, a revised assessment order dated 16.05.2019 bearing Reference TIN 33663100382/2011-12 made by lone official respondent has been called in question. In the second writ petition, a revised assessment order dated 22.05.2019 bearing Reference TIN 33663100382/2015-16 has been called in question. 7. The 'Revised Assessment Order dated 16.05.2019' which has been called in question in the first writ petition shall be referred to as 'first impugned order' and the 'Revised Assessment Order dated 22.05.2019' which has been called in question in the second writ petition shall be referred to as 'se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle Judge of this Court. 12. Learned State Counsel pointed out that the writ petitioner dealer under TNVAT Act, as an assessee under 'Income Tax Act,1961' ('IT' Act for brevity) has been filing reports contradictory to one another and therefore, the records have been looked into. This takes us to Sharoff Syndicate judgment. Paragraph 10 is of relevance and the most relevant of portion of paragraph 10 of Sharoff Syndicate judgment reads as follows: '10..........It was pointed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court that the courses of taxation under the Income Tax Act and the Sales Tax Act are entirely different, as, in the former, the Income of the dealer is assessed to tax and is quantified by the Income Tax Officer in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ordains the Assessing Authorities functioning thereunder to bring to tax sales as such either found in the books of accounts or agreed to be so by the assessee or otherwise proved to be so by circumstantial evidence. Thus, by analyzing the manner, in which, two statutes operate, the Hon'ble Division Bench held in favour of the Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciples of justice. An element of guess work is bound to be present in best judgment assessment but it must have a reasonable nexus, to the available material and the circumstances of each case. (See The State of Kerala Vs. C.Velukutty). Where account books are accepted along with other records there can be no ground for making a best judgment assessment.' 16. Most relevant part of H.M.Esufali case is contained in paragraph 8 and the most relevant portion of paragraph 8 reads as follows: '8....... In such a situation, it was not possible for the Sales Tax Officer to find out precisely the turnover suppressed. He could only make an estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the material before him. So long as the estimate made by him is not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the same cannot be questioned. In the very nature of things the estimate made may be an over-estimate or an underestimate. But that is no ground for interfering with his 'best-judgment'. It is true that the basis adopted by the officer should be relevant to the estimate made. The High Court was wrong in assuming that the assessing authority must have mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stimate made by the assessing authority cannot be disturbed. In the present case, there is no dispute that the assessee's accounts were rightly discarded. We do not agree with the High Court that it is the duty of the assessing authority to adduce proof in support of its estimate. The basis adopted, by the Sales Tax Officer was a relevant one whether it was the most appropriate or not. Hence the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. ' 17. This Court as already alluded to supra, after perusing the impugned orders, has come to the conclusion that it cannot be gainsaid by writ petitioner that Narasus Roller Flour Mill's principle has not been adhered to, as the respondent Assessing Officer has considered the proposals made by Enforcement Wing Officials, has also set out the objections of writ petitioner assessee and has returned findings. If there is any error in these findings returned, at best it can be canvassed by way of an appeal being a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act as the same turns heavily on facts. 18. With regard to appeal provision under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, learned counsel for writ petitioner raised an interesting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ati Tandon Case [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] has held that when it comes to matter pertain to Taxes, CESS, Revenue etc., the rule of alternate remedy has to be applied with utmost rigour. This Satyawati Tondon principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85]. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 & 128, Paras 43 & 55) "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Articl....