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

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy available under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court found that the first respondent had not violated the principles of natural justice nor passed the order without application of mind. The impugned order partly allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioner regarding the levy of tax on commission, indicating consideration of the assessment order. The Court also noted that the writ petition was filed beyond the period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 58(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act. The Court left it open for the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and satisfy it with sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it would not adjudicate on the sufficiency of the cause for delay. The Court found no merit in the writ petition.

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 passed in appeal against a revised assessment order dated 27.12.2017 by the Assistant Commissioner (CT). The revision notice proposed reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchases made from dealers whose TINs were cancelled. The petitioner had submitted a reply, but the assessment order confirmed the proposal. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner partly allowed the appeal, disallowing ITC claims on purchases from cancelled dealers. The petitioner contended that the appellate order was passed mechanically, without application of mind, and without considering a circular dated 29.08.2007, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order 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, efficacious statutory remedy available against the impugned order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the first respondent passed a cryptic, non-speaking order without considering the documents and submissions, including a circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 29.08.2007. This failure to apply mind and consider relevant materials amounted to a violation of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Sujatha Jewellery Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Kumbakonam and The Siements Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., Vs. the Union of India and another to support the contention that quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned and that non-application of mind is a ground for writ intervention. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment excerpt. However, the Court noted that an appeal remedy was available under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, and the writ petition was filed beyond the prescribed period.