TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 respondent Assessing Officer thereafter issued yet anot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 (though the exact date is not readily available with the learned counsel) but the writ petition has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 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 case, the dealer has not availed of the personal hearing and has casually come to this Court after two years of the impugned order and submits that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 entir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in 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) f) One other case law of significance is a recent judgment of a three member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commercial Steel Limited case [Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and ....