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 of appeal available under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the first respondent had partly allowed the appeal, indicating some application of mind. The reasoning provided by the first respondent, that the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence regarding the cancellation of selling dealers' registration certificates, was considered sufficient by the Court to counter the claim of a non-speaking order. The Court also observed that the writ petition was filed beyond the prescribed period for filing an appeal. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition, as there was no violation of principles of natural justice or a lack of jurisdiction. The Court left it open for the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and satisfy the Tribunal regarding sufficient cause for any delay in filing the appeal.

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. The petitioner's business premises were inspected in February 2017, and subsequently, a revision notice was issued proposing to reverse Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchases made from dealers whose TINs were cancelled. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) passed an assessment order dated 27.12.2017 confirming this proposal. The petitioner appealed to the first respondent, who partly allowed the appeal but disallowed the ITC claim on purchases from cancelled dealers. The petitioner contended that the first respondent passed a cryptic, non-speaking order without applying his mind and without considering a relevant circular, thus violating principles of natural justice.

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? (Framed as a question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness of the appellate order under the TNVAT Act, 2006). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the first respondent passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, failing to give due consideration to the documents and submissions made. They contended that the order was passed mechanically without applying mind and without considering the circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VAT cell / 39009 / 2017 dated 29.08.2007, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court noted that the first respondent had provided reasoning that the petitioner did not produce documentary evidence to prove that the registration certificates of the selling dealers were cancelled.