TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) on behalf of the second respondent are before this Court. 3. Captioned main writ petition was heard out. 4. Short facts shorn of elaboration will suffice owing to the nature of the matter and the grounds of challenge qua impugned order. Suffice to say that the writ petitioner, which is a registered partnership firm, is carrying on business in quarrying and marketing granites. The Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN), which is a Government company invited tenders for raising-cum-selling granites blocks for quarries situate at Sivanthipuram in Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, writ petitioner was the highest bidder, an agreement dated 30.11.2005 was entered into and the writ petitioner was awarded the contract by TAMIN. Thereafter, the writ petitioner quarried for the contractual period. Though the second respondent did not renew the contract, the writ petitioner filed a civil suit and on the basis of interim order, continued quarrying, to be noted, this is the admitted averment of the writ petitioner. However, it is not necessary t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxes, if any cannot be ignored. The selling price is only Ex-Quarry price. 8. Learned State Counsel for TAMIN submitted that as far as TAMIN is concerned, the agreement dated 30.11.2005, being a raising-cum-selling granite blocks agreement, was for three years, three years period elapsed but the writ petitioner has admitted in the writ affidavit that he has approached the civil court, obtained an interim order and continued quarrying on the basis of the interim order. 9. In terms of reply / rejoinder submissions, learned Senior Advocate reiterated the opening submissions and also submitted that the question of penalty will not arise in an assessment under Section 143 (3) of IT Act, as the issue of suppression does not come into play. 10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions, now embarks upon the exercise of setting out the discussion and giving its dispositive reasoning qua captioned main writ petition for arriving at a conclusion. 11. This Court finds that the impugned order i.e., impugned assessment order proceeds on the basis that the raising-cum-selling agreement i.e., aforementioned 30.11.2005 agreement between the petitioner and TAMIN requires the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edies 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 Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.' (Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 14. Satyawati Tandon principle was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case. Relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathew case is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hers Vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited]. The three member Bench of the Honble Supreme Court speaking through Hon'ble Justice Dr.Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, set out the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy and made it clear that only in exceptional cases (where the exceptions are attracted), there would be interference in writ jurisdiction. Relevant paragraphs in Commercial Steel Limited case law are paragraph Nos 11 and 12, which read as follows: '11 The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12 In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since....