M/S.Sonas Essence Mart vs. The Appellate Deputy

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but such jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory remedy is available, unless there is a violation of principles of natural justice or the order is passed without jurisdiction. The Court examined the impugned order and found that the first respondent had partly allowed the appeal, indicating some application of mind. The Court also noted that the writ petition was filed beyond the period prescribed for filing an appeal. Therefore, the Court held that the first respondent had neither violated the principles of natural justice nor passed the order by total non-application of mind. The Court left it open for the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and satisfy it with sufficient cause for any delay in filing the appeal, as per the proviso to Section 58(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sonas Essence Mart, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)(FAC), Trichy. This order was in appeal against a revised assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT). The revision notice, dated 24.07.2017, proposed reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchases made from dealers whose TINs were cancelled. The petitioner claims to have submitted all required documents under Section 19 of the TNVAT Act. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner partly allowed the appeal, disallowing ITC on purchases from cancelled dealers, stating the petitioner did not produce documentary evidence to prove the selling dealers' registration certificates were cancelled.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the first respondent violates the principles of natural justice and was passed without application of mind, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the TNVAT Act, 2006? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the first respondent passed a cryptic, non-speaking order without due consideration to the documents and submissions made, and without applying his mind to a circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (VCC No.1060) dated 29.08.2007. This, the petitioner argued, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued that an appeal remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. They also implicitly argued that the first respondent had applied his mind as evidenced by the partial allowance of the appeal.