AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth these writ petitions are before this Court. 3. Subject matter of instant writ petitions arise under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)', hereinafter 'TNVAT Act' for brevity. 4. This Court is informed that these two writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix. This Court is also informed that the central theme/core issue in both these writ petitions is one and the same and only the assessment years are different i.e., impugned order in W.P.No.10156 of 2019 pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14 and impugned order in W.P.No.10157 of 2019 pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. Obviously numerical values will also be different. 5. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the writ petitioner is no doubt in the business activity of import and with regard to alleged suppression, which is one of the grounds, on which impugned orders have been passed, writ petitioner's 'Import Export Code' ('IEC') has been misused and the writ petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 11.12.2017 with the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 10. Adverting to the impugned order and also the common counter affidavit filed in these two writ petitions, learned Revenue counsel submitted that the entire matter pertains to two issues namely mismatch and purchase suppression. Adverting to the impugned order, learned revenue counsel submitted that with regard to mismatch is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the last 2 ½ years to carry the complaint to its logical end. In the hearing today, there is nothing to demonstrate that the writ petitioner pursued the complaint dated 11.12.2017 stated to have been made with the Customs Commissionerate, Chennai. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned orders on the ground of purchase suppression as the respondent cannot examine the alleged misuse of IEC plea as that plea is within the domain of Customs Commissionerate. It is for the writ petitioner to carry the issue to its logical end with the Customs Commissionerate. This Court is of the considered view that writ petitioner, not being able to demonstrate that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or without giving an opportunity to writ petitioner to show cause. In other words, the rule of alternate remedy is not a rule of compulsion. It is a rule of discretion. To put it differently, alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule. Though the rule of alternate remedy is not an absolute rule, Honourable Supreme court in Dunlop India case [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and ors.] reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 held in Paragraph 3 as follows: '3. .....Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(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 recover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders have been passed without jurisdiction, without opportunity to show cause or alternate remedy is ineffectual/not efficacious. 21. Suffice to say that there is nothing to demonstrate that this case, more particularly, the impugned orders does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternative remedy under Section 51 of TNVAT Act to the jurisdictional Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It is also open to the writ petitioner to pursue the complaint said to have been given to the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate and carry the same to its logical end and place the same before the Appellate Authority in ....