TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-12 2011-2012 22056/2021 3 21.04.2021 TIN:33163364594/2012-13 2012-2013 22060/2021 4 21.04.2021 TIN:33163364594/2013-14 2013-2014 22064/2021 5 21.04.2021 TIN:33163364594/2014-15 2014-2015 22066/2021 6 21.04.2021 TIN:33163364594/2015-16 2015-2016 22069/2021 2. The aforementioned six revisional/re-assessment orders shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned orders' in plural and 'impugned order' in singular wherever necessary (if it becomes necessary). 3. Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned counsel for writ petitioner in all the six writ petitions, who is before this Virtual Court submits that this is the second round of litigation. The respondent had made revisional/reassessment orders earlier, the same were called in question/assailed by the writ petitioner by way of six writ petitions in this Court being W.P.Nos.5818 to 5823 of 2018 and all these six writ petitions together with writ miscellaneous petition Nos.7155 to 7160 of 2018 thereat came to be disposed of by a Hon'ble Single Judge in and by a common order dated 15.03.2018. 4. Adverting to aforementioned common order in earlier round....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VAT Act. To be noted, this is mentioned in the impugned order itself by way of a note and the same reads as follows: 'Note:- An appeal against this order lies before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Salem within 30 days of receipt of this order.' 7. Before proceeding further, this Court is constrained to record that this is yet another case where the respondent has made the impugned order without mentioning exact provision of law under which it has been made. However, in this case, there is no disputation or disagreement between the parties that the impugned orders have been made under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. By way of reply, learned counsel for writ petitioner besides reiterating his submissions made in the opening arguments, submitted that personal hearing was no doubt offered vide 11.02.2021 communication, but the respondent should have gone into the question of whether the dealer at the far end has paid the tax, the same has not been done in spite of specific observations in this regard made by this Court in aforementioned previous common order dated 15.03.2018. 8. This Court now considers the rival submissions or in other words, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase law, [State Bank of India Officer's Association (CC) - SBIOA Vs. The Assistant Commisioner, Chennai-1 in W.P.No.22634 of 2019 order dated 01.08.2019]. This Court is informed that this order has not been reported in any law journal. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to give case number and date of order for the benefit of all concerned. Be that as it may, what is of greater significance is, this order made in State Bank of India officers case law was carried in appeal by way of intra- Court appeal vide W.A.No.4073 of 2019 and a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal in and by order dated 16.12.2019. Therefore, the order of this Court made in State Bank of India officers case law, has been sustained vide order of Hon'ble Division Bench. 11. Be that as it may, in State Bank of India officers case law, this Court noticed that the language in which proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 22 of TNVAT Act is couched is different from the language in which common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act is couched. This Court observed that the expression used in sub-section (4) of Section 22 of TNVAT Act is 'a reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tena of case laws, Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that alternate remedy rule though not absolute, should be applied with utmost rigour when it comes to fiscal Statutes. The authorities are Dunlop India case [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260], Satyawati Tandon [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] and K.C.Mathew [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85]. To be noted, these are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 14. Relevant paragraph in Dunlop case is paragraph No.3 and relevant portion of the same reads 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 the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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.' (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 16. To be noted in paragraph No.10 of K.C.Mathew's case, Satyawati Tondon principle has been extracted and reproduced. Therefore, this Court refrains itself from embarking upon exercise of extracting and reproducing relevant paragraphs from Satyawati Tondon case law. More importantly, in a very recent judgment in Commercial Steel Limited case [Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited], Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., a three member Bench of Hon'ble Supre....