Madras High Court
M/S.Moa Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2021
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2013
M/s.Moa Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep., by its Director,
Flat No.11, Block No.1,
Swathi Tezas, Padmini Garden,
Mount, Nandambakkam, Chennai-89. .. Petitioner in all W.Ps.
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep., by its Secretary,
CT & RE Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Alandur Assessment Circle,
Chennai-16. .. Respondents in all W.Ps.
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of
the second respondent in TIN/33500844541/2009-10,
TIN/33500844541/2010-11, TIN/33500844541/2011-12 and
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
TIN/33500844541/2008-09 dated 28.03.2013 and quash the same as passed
violating the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs. Suresh
Trading Company reported in 109 STC 439 followed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.12305/2012 and batch of cases.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar
(In all W.Ps.)
For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy,
(In all W.Ps.) Government Advocate
******
COMMON ORDER
The assessment orders passed by the second respondent in
proceedings dated 28.03.2013, for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12
are under challenge in these writ petitions.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the Assessing
Authority passed the assessment orders without providing an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner made a specific request for
personal hearing in order to defend their case. However, no such
opportunity was granted. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Authority
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
has granted certain benefits in favour of the petitioner and the other benefits
sought for were rejected.
3.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if at all
the petitioner is aggrieved with regard to certain reliefs, which all are not
granted, file an appeal for redressal of the grievances. The petitioner
contends that certain benefits are admittedly granted. Regarding those
benefits, the authorities have considered the facts. With regard to the other
benefits, they have not considered. Such a contra stand deserves no
adjudication on merits in a writ proceedings. Contrarily, the petitioner has
to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority for adjudication of facts
and circumstances based on the issues raised.
4.High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry regarding the disputed
facts and circumstances, which all are to be done by scrutinizing the
documents and evidences. The business transactions, intricacies, evasion of
taxes and nature of transactions are to be considered with reference to the
provisions of the Act and Rules. Such an exercise cannot be done by the
High Court in a writ proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the calculated
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
way of dealing with business transactions by the traders are to be considered
with an expertise and the officials competent, in this regard, must be
allowed to scrutinise the documents in detail, form an opinion and take a
decision and thereafter, the person aggrieved has to prefer an appeal, as the
appellate authority is the final fact finding authority. Thus, the findings of
the appellate authority as well as the original authority are of paramount
importance for the purpose of dealing with the issues by the High Court for
exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In other words, findings of the original authority as
well as the appellate authority would be of greater assistance to the High
Court for effective disposal of the writ petitions and for providing complete
justice to the parties. In the event of dispensing with the appeal remedy on
frivolous grounds, the aggrieved persons are also deprived of their
opportunity to adjudicate issues before the appellate authorities. Thus, it is
not preferable to encourage by dispensing with the appellate remedy, which
all are provided under the statute. In the present case, the grievances as
raised as well as the grounds put forth are to be considered by the appellate
authority with reference to the facts as well as the documents in original.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
5.Exhausting the appeal remedy is the rule. Dispensing with the
appellate remedy is an exception. Power of discretion is to be exercised
discretely only if there is an imminent urgency or damage, if any, caused or
there is any threat, which cannot be compensated then alone, the
extraordinary power may be invoked for the purpose of granting relief by
dispensing with the appellate remedy.
6.Power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is to scrutinise the processes and the procedures
adopted by the competent authorities for arriving a particular decision in
accordance with law, but not the decision itself. Thus, the High Court
cannot entertain an adjudicative process regarding the mixed question of
fact and law with reference to the documents and evidences in original.
High Court cannot resolve the disputed issues between the parties only
based on the affidavits filed in the writ petitions. There is a possibility of
omissions and commissions. Thus, adjudication before the appellate
authority with reference to such disputed findings of the original authority
would be of greater importance.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
7.This being the factum, exhausting the appellate remedy is imminent
and only thereafter, based on the findings of the appellate authority, final
decision may be taken. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner
is at liberty to prefer an appeal in a prescribed format and by complying
with the requirements before the jurisdictional appellate authority within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in
the event of preferring any such appeal by the petitioner, the appellate
authority is empowered to entertain the same and adjudicate the issues on
merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the writ
petitioner and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
With the above observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.07.2021
Note : Registry is directed to return
the original impugned orders.
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
abr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
CT & RE Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Alandur Assessment Circle,
Chennai-16.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(abr)
W.P.Nos.16294 to 16297 of 2013
14.07.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
