2021 (3) TMI 963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the goods, which were transported from Maharashtra to Tamil Nadu and imposing a compounding fee. The second respondent disposed of the said revision petition by remanding the matter to the first respondent to fix the correct compounding fee as per the provisions of the Statute namely Section 72(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for short, the Act). 4. The learned Single Judge, who heard the said writ petition, held that as against the order passed by the second respondent dated 06.2.2017, a second revision lies before the Additional Commissioner (CT) (RP), office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and the time limit for filing the second revision was 30 days. Further, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020], the learned Single Judge held that the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, ought not to entertain a writ petition assailing the order passed by a statutory authority which was not appealed against within the maximum per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. ........ The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra). In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose. ...... 19........ Pertinently, no finding has been recorded by the High Court that it was a case of violation of principles of natural justice or non complia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Article 226 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of The Constitution of India could not be circumscribed by the provisions of the Enactment (Central Excise Act) and they would certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. Further, the Court directed that the writ petition would be considered and disposed of in the the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Tax Act and for such a reason, the power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India has to be exercised to effectuate rule of law and not for abrogating it. 9. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the observation of the learned Single Judge to the effect that there is absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition does not reflect the correct legal position. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the observation made in the impugned order." 7. In the light of the said decision rendered by us, one of the parameters, which can be taken note of by the Constitutional Court is as to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arification by the appellant dated 25.1.2016. This was accompanied by a stock transfer invoice of even date wherein it had been stated 'not for sale', but for demonstration purpose on returnable basis. The stock transfer delivery note also stated that it was not for sale, but for demonstration on returnable basis. Soon after the detention, though the appellant paid one time tax for release of the equipment, they filed their objections dated 12.3.2016 mentioning among other things that the mini excavator was dispatched from Chennai branch on 25.1.2016, that the same returned on 09.3.2016 and that there was no possibility to sell the machine to the said M/s.FYN Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 12. The appellant also enclosed a copy of LR for transfer of machines from Mumbai to Chennai for the reference of the first respondent. Further, the appellant explained that they raised a stock transfer invoice on 07.3.2016, that due to some technical issues, they were unable to dispatch the materials on the particular date and that the same were dispatched from the Mumbai branch of the appellant to Chennai on 09.3.2016. 13. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a compounding notice dated....