TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sides, main writ petitions itself are taken up for disposal, heard out and are being disposed of. 3. This Court is informed by both sides that the parties in both these writ petitions are same and the central theme / core issue in both these writ petitions is the same. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the difference between the two writ petitions is the assessment years and obviously numerical values. While first of the two writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.6370 of 2019 pertains to assessment year 2014-2015, the second writ petition namely W.P.No.6370 of 2018 pertains to assessment year 2015-2016. 4. Subject matter of the instant writ petitions arises under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TN Act 32/2006)' ( whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1333/2014-15, TIN/33240361333/2015-16. These two assessment orders have been called in question in these two writ petitions, which are now being disposed of. These two revised assessment orders which have been made inter alia under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'impugned orders' in plural and 'impugned order' in singular. 8. Primordial contention of learned counsel for writ petitioner is, with regard to the two aforesaid issues namely purchase from Registration Certificate cancelled dealers and mismatch, judgment of Ho'nble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Trading company reported in 1998 109 STC 439 (SC) and judgment of this Court in M/s.JKM Graphi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fects. Further an opportunity of personal hearing was afford to them. They have filed their objection in their letter dated 11.05.2017. Further notices were issued to the dealer on 08.12.2017 and 30.10.2018. But they have not filed any objection till date. In their reply dated 11.05.2017, they have stated that the purchase were made from the registered dealers, by way of paying tax properly. As and when they made the purchases, they ensured that the registration of the dealer has been in force. Further in support of their contention, they have filed the copies of tax invoice, issued by their sellers and bank statement. Further they have cited case laws pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in their support. 4. Further, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any opinion on merits of what according to the writ petitioner counsel are errors and on the submissions made on merits qua the impugned order, in view of the order which this Court now proposes to pass in the instant case. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that statutory appeal remedy is available to the writ petitioner against the impugned orders under Section 51 of TNVAT Act and the appeal lies to the jurisdictional appellate Deputy Commissioner. This takes us to the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternate remedy. 11. There is a long line of authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect of the matter i.e, exercise of writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternate remedy. To put th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that disregarding orders of higher Courts is also an exception to the rule of alternate remedy. To be noted, in the instant case, in the light of the narrative supra particularly relevant portion of paragraph no.3 in the first impugned order and entire paragraph no.4 of the second impugned order which have been extracted and reproduced supra, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be gainsaid that the Suresh Trading company principle with regard to purchase from registration cancelled dealers and M/s.JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited principle with regard to mismatch, have been given a go-by as respondent has embarked upon the exercise in accordance with the principles in Suresh Trading company and M/s.JKM Graphics....