TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, main writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. Subject matter of instant writ petition arises under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TNVAT Act' for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. This is the second round of litigation pertaining to assessment of the writ petitioner for the 'Assessment Year 2011-12' (hereinafter 'said AY' for brevity). 5. There is no disputation or disagreement that writ petitioner is a dealer under TNVAT Act and a revised Assessment Order came to be passed on 09.02.2015 for the said AY. This revised Assessment Order was assailed by writ petitioner by way of a writ petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P is closed.' 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court in the earlier round in this Court, second respondent Assessing Officer, commenced revised assessment proceedings afresh. There is no disputation or disagreement that a personal hearing notice was issued and personal hearing was in fact, held on 02.11.2018. Post personal hearing, the second respondent passed a revised Assessment Order dated 01.04.2019 bearing Reference No.TIN 33720941905/2011-12 (hereinafter 'impugned order' for brevity). Instant writ petition, which is the second round of litigation in this Court, has now been filed assailing the impugned order, which is culmination of earlier round of litigation. 7. Notwithstanding various averments a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no doubt a self imposed restriction by this Court. There can also be no disputation that alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule. In other words, it is not a rule of compulsion, but it is a rule of discretion. Notwithstanding the obtaining position that alternate remedy rule is a rule of discretion, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon Case [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] has held that when it comes to matters pertaining to Taxes, CESS, Revenue etc., the rule of alternate remedy should 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 relevant statute. 55.It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.' (U....