TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ader, who accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents are before this Court, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides main writ petition was taken up, heard out, owing to the short point involved and the narrow compass on which the captioned main writ petition turns. 4. Owing to the narrow compass on which captioned matter turns, short facts will suffice. Short facts shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order are that the writ petitioner is a dealer under TNVAT Act; that there was deemed assessment qua writ petitioner under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act for the 'Assessment Year 2012-13' (hereinafter 'said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that post such deemed assessment, the Assessing Officer i.e., the second respondent found that large scale purchase omissions have been made by the dealer qua said AY; that the second respondent treated such purchase omissions as sales suppression and issued pre-revision notice (by resorting to Section 27 of TNVAT Act) i.e., pre-revision notice dated 26.12.2018; that the writ petitioner sent a terse reply made up of three short sentences without any enclosures; that the second responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verification and the whole process is based on further verification and therefore, it cannot be gain said that JKM Graphics principle or Mangalam Stores case ratio has been given a go by; and d) there is an alternate remedy for the writ petitioner by way of a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act. 7. By way of reply, learned counsel for writ petitioner, besides reiterating his submissions made in the opening arguments, submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the writ petitioner. 8. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the fact setting that has been captured supra and after analysing the rival submissions in the backdrop of the fact setting, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for acceding to the prayer of the writ petition or in other words, this is not a fit case for interfering in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and the reasons are as follows: a) in the case on hand, the writ petitioner has approached this Court nearly two years after the impugned order. The impugned order is dated 14.01.2020, it has admittedly been served on the writ petitioner in February 2020 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019 in W.P.No.22634 of 2019 that for proceedings under Section 27 of TNVAT Act in the light of the common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act, a personal hearing is not statutorily imperative. This Court has held that it will suffice if sufficient opportunity to show cause is given. That view was taken in the light of difference in language qua proviso to Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act and the common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act. This order was carried in appeal by Revenue by way of an intra Court appeal vide W.A.No.4073 of 2019 and a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2019 dismissed the writ appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, a personal hearing is not statutorily imperative qua a section 27 TNVAT Act drill. Though personal hearing is not statutorily imperative for a legal drill under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, the second respondent Assessing Officer has offered a personal hearing also to the writ petitioner in the case on hand. To be noted, in the SBI Officer's Association case, this Court has made it clear that granting personal hearing is at the discretion of the Assessing Officer. In this cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to examination of records as to the verification done. The appellate authority could have always look into these matters. There is no reason much less a tenable or acceptable reason that has been set out in the case on hand as to why the writ petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy. This takes this Court to the alternate remedy rule. Alternate remedy rule no doubt is not an absolute rule. It is a rule of discretion. It is not only a rule of discretion but it is a self imposed restraint qua writ jurisdiction. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of authorities starting from Dunlop India case [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260] has repeatedly held that the alternate remedy rule has to be strictly enforced with utmost rigour when it comes to fiscal Statutes. The other case laws are 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]. Relevant paragraph in Dunlop case law is paragraph No.3 and relevant porti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the 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, highlight and for ease of reference) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same is as follows: '15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.' g) Therefore, the above is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. h) This Court is also of the considered view that a tax liability case cannot be....