TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end were not the actual dealers in Yarn and were non-existing dealers. Therefore, the Assessing Officer stated that the appellant has effected the purchase of Yarn from unregistered dealers or Registration Certificate canceled dealers. Therefore, there was a proposal to revise the turnover and assess the Tax at 4%, after adding 10% towards Freight and Gross Profit. 3.The appellant submitted their objections to the notice by letter, dated 27.04.2002, which was received by the Assessing Officer on 16.06.2005. Even earlier, the appellant had submitted that their sellers are M/s.Shree Anjaneya Textiles, Pollachi, and they have valid Registration Certificate under the Act and they produced a copy of the renewal of the Registration Certificate, copies of the bills, payment details and other details about the seller to enable the Assessing Officer to cause verification. The Assessing Officer did not accept the stand taken by the appellant and completed the assessment by order dated 02.01.2006. This order was put to challenge by filing the writ petition, which was filed during the year 2006 and an order of interim stay was granted. The respondent/Department, represented by the State Tax O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Therefore, the appellant prayed the Writ Court to consider the case on merits. 6.The learned Writ Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed the writ petition, solely by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, as the appellant had challenged the order of assessment by filing the writ petition beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 31(1) of the Act. 7.We find from the impugned order that the contentions raised by the appellant on distinguishing the decision in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, have not been dealt with. 8.Questioning the correctness of the order passed in the writ petition, the appellant is before us. 9.We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Venkateswaran, learned Government Advocate, accepting notice for the respondent. 10.The first issue to be considered is whether, the writ petition, which was admitted and pending before this Court from 2006 and interim stay was operating against the respondent, could have been rejected on the ground mentioned by the learned Writ Court in the impugned order. Parallelly, the other issue would be whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri vs. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar [AIR 1969 SC 556] and also Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. [2011 (14) SCC 337]. In Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1419], the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person..... 15. ........ 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 Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cide the issue and (v) if there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court will step in and exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. 8. Further, it would be highly beneficial to refer to the celebrated decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536] wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal position as to whether, the appellant is required to prove that the selling dealer had paid taxes. This issue is no longer res integra and one of the earlier decisions on the said issue is the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Govindan and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1975 (35) STC 50 (Mad). The facts are more or less identical and it was held in the said decision that the purchasing dealer need not show that the sellers have in fact paid tax and it is enough for them to show that the earliest sales are taxable sales and that the tax is really payable by their sellers. This decision was followed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Chamundeeswari Enterprises reported in (1983) 52 STC 124. In Deputy Commissioner (CT) Trichy Division v. V.R.Kuppusamy Gounder & Sons reported in (1995) 98 STC 408, a similar issue arose for consideration, wherein, the Revenue took a stand that the bills issued by the alleged sellers were bogus and they were non- existent and therefore, the purchasing dealer had to pay tax. The Revenue stated that the assessee therein have not proved the movement of goods, but the assessee had produced certain documents before the....