TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factual matrix is common and the Assessment Years alone are different in these four writ petitions. Obviously, numerical values are also different. 4. The Assessment Years are 2012-2013(W.P.No.3219 of 2019), 2015-2016(W.P.No.5042 of 2019), 2013-2014(W.P.No.5055 of 2019), 2014-2015(W.P.No.5066 of 2019). 5. More importantly, it is submitted that the core issue or the central theme in all these four writ petitions is the same. 6. Be that as it may, it is pointed out that the trajectory, which this matter took before the Assessing Officer namely 4th respondent alone is slightly different with regard to W.P.No.3219 of 2019, which pertains to Assessment year 2012-2013. 7. All these writ petitions arise under the 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006' ['TNVAT Act' for the sake of brevity]. 8. There are a set of rules that have been made by the Government by way of Subordinate legislation under the rule making power under TNVAT Act being Section 80 of TNVAT Act. This set of rules goes by the name 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007' ['TNVAT Rules' for the sake of brevity]. 9. The Common factual matrix is that the writ petitioner is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner that the Assessment orders originally passed would reveal that the writ petitioner has submitted Forms 'R' pertaining to TDS. 16. However, there was no response to the pre-assessment notice. 17. This is as mentioned supra in W.P.No.3219 of 2019 alone. With regard to other three writ petitions, admittedly, there was no response at all. 18. It is in this backdrop that learned Revenue counsel, adverting to the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.3219 of 2019 submitted that the modality prescribed pursuant to Section 13(2) of TNVAT Act is adumbrated and contained in Rule 9 of TNVAT Rules. Adverting to Rule 9, learned counsel submitted that submission of Form 'R' would not suffice and there are several other responsibilities that are cast on the writ petitioner under various Sub Rules under Rule 9 of TNVAT Rules. Considering the nature of this case, this Court deems it appropriate to extract entire Rule 9 of TNVAT Rules and the same reads as follows: '9. Tax deduction at source.-[(1)(a) Any person liable to make deduction and payment of tax under section 13 shall apply to the registering a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erials seized by the Enforcement Wing. This is articulated in paragraph 9 of G.V.Cotton Mills case and the same reads as follows: '9. This is not a case of failure to submit any kind of explanation taking into account the incriminating materials seized by the enforcement wing. The appellant has submitted written objections at least on two occasions to the notices issued by the enforcement wing. The respondent exercised the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment only on the basis of the materials collected by the enforcement wing. Those materials along with the written objections were forwarded to the respondent. The respondent without looking into the objections took cognizance of the alleged incriminating materials and passed an ex parte assessment. The failure to consider the objections received by the enforcement wing and forwarded by them to the respondent would vitiate the assessment orders passed by the respondent.' [underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight] In other words, that was a case, where the explanation was submitted but the respondent without looking into the objections, took cognizance of the alleged incr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 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 not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasijudicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Th....