TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under TNVAT Act. 6.On verification of returns filed by the writ petitioner, particularly Form WW, certain discrepancies were found, particularly it was noticed that writ petitioner has effected purchases to the tune of little over 1.63 Crores, but on verification by Department it turned out that numerical values were different. Therefore, a revisional notice dated 12.04.2018 was issued specifically calling upon the writ petitioner to file objections, if any, inter-alia setting out the details of purchases. To be noted, revisional notice was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and this is not a case of inspection by the Enforcement Wing. 7. Writ petitioner did not respond to the revisional notice and therefore, the respondent proceeded with the revisional assessment and passed a revised Assessment Order dated 11.05.2018 bearing reference TIN No.33813903508/2013-14 (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity). 8. Impugned order being a revised Assessment Order has been passed under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. 9. Assailing the impugned order instant writ petition has been filed. 10. Notwithstanding the various averments made in the affida....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case is an authority for the factual setting of that particular matter in which the decision is rendered and most relevant paragraph is Paragraph 9, which reads as follows: '9.Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL) [Sub nom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]] . Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.' 16. As already alluded to supra, though learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service Girdhari Lal case alone, as three other judgments/orders have been annexed to the typed-set of papers, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the same also. 17. The next judgment is, what has no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judge to direct re-assessment to be done denovo. 21. Therefore, the four judgments/orders annexed to the typed-set of papers in the considered opinion of this Court do not come to the aid of the writ petitioner in the instant case. Underling common aspect in terms of facts in all these four cases is that the Assessee have sent objections to revisional notice. 22. Be that as it may, one other striking distinguishable fact noticed by this Court on a perusal of the impugned order is that writ petitioner not responding to the revisional notice is not the sole basis on which revised assessment has been made under Section 27 in the instant case. The fact that writ petitioner has not sent objection has no doubt been articulated in the impugned order and the relevant paragraph in the impugned order reads as follows: 'Accordingly a Notice dated 12.04.2018 was issued to the dealers calling them to file their objections if any to the above proposals. The dealers who received the notice by RPAD on 18.04.2018 neither filed objection nor any letter till the date of order. I have no other alternative except to confirm the proposal and order passed is detailed below' H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85]. Relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathew case 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 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....