M/S V.R.Muthu And Bros vs. The State Tax Officer-1

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. Citing Supreme Court judgments in K.C. Mathew and The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited, the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances, such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute. The Court found that none of these exceptions were attracted. Specifically, regarding the principle of natural justice, the Court noted that the previous Division Bench order in its order dated 28.10.2021 had clearly observed that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, and the petitioner chose to seek more time. The Court concluded that the petitioner's campaign against the impugned orders failed and dismissed the writ petitions, while preserving the petitioner's right to pursue statutory appeals, subject to limitation and pre-deposit conditions. The Court also noted that this was the third round of litigation and it was time for the dealer to move to the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros., a wholesale distributor, challenged four revisional orders dated 28.09.2021 passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. These orders stemmed from a VAT Enforcement Audit that identified three defects: sale price being less than purchase price, non-payment of tax on sales in monthly returns for 2011-12, and non-production of Form-H. This was the third round of litigation concerning these assessments. Previous proceedings involved challenges to pre-revision notices and appeals against High Court orders, with a Division Bench emphasizing the need to examine books of accounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the pre-revision notices dated 03.09.2021 were properly served on the petitioner before the impugned revisional orders were passed on 28.09.2021, considering the petitioner's request for time to respond? 2. Whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to produce books of accounts and other records, as directed by previous court orders, before the impugned revisional orders were passed? 3. Whether the petitioner's objections dated 27.08.2021 were considered by the respondent before passing the impugned orders? Petitioner's arguments: The pre-revision notices were not served timely. Time was sought until the first week of February to respond to earlier notices, but pre-revision notices were issued prematurely on 03.09.2021, leading to hurried assessment orders on 28.09.2021. The earlier Division Bench order mandated the production and examination of books of accounts, and more time was needed for this. The petitioner's objections dated 27.08.2021 were not considered. Respondent's arguments: The issue of pre-revision notices was already decided in previous litigation. Adequate opportunity was given, as the petitioner failed to produce books of accounts and instead submitted details already with the department. The impugned orders reflect that further opportunity was given and captured the petitioner's contentions.