MARUTHI TRADERS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material on record discloses that W.P. Nos.21322 to 21325 of 2016, have been filed challenging the assessment proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer, Perur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2007-2008 respectively. Consequently, appellant has sought for a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer, Perur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore, the assessing authority, to pass fresh orders by providing an opportunity to cross-examine parties alleged to have issued sale bills in the name of the appellant/petitioner and also to provide personal hearing to the appellant.

(2.) Writ court, has observed that when pre-revision notice was issued to the appellant, the same was returned with a postal endorsement that "no such addressee in the door number", and when the appellant had refused to receive the notice, not cooperated with the department, the conduct of the dealer cannot be ignored. Adverting to the contention of the appellant that they have surrendered Registration Certificate as early as on 30.11.2011 and though, Local Delivery Book was produced to substantiate surrender of Registration Certificate, declining to accept the same as proof of surrender of Registration Certificate, and that grounds raised being questions of fact, vide common order dated 30.06.2016, dismissed the writ petitions, giving liberty to the petitioner, either to seek for rectification of the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Perur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore, respondent herein, by invoking the power under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by filing a petition or to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the common order made in W.P. Nos.21322 to 21325 of 2016, instant writ appeals have been filed. Though Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterated the same facts and urged this court to entertain the appeals, this court is not inclined to do so for the reason that, on more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this court, held that, ordinarily, writ petitions should not be entertained when the statutes provide for an effective and alternative remedy, moreso, in revenue matters. Reference can be made to few decisions, in this regard.