PRIYA POLY BAGS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a registered dealer in poly bags under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short 'TNVAT Act']. He submitted his returns for the assessment year 2009-10 as per the Act. Thereafter, in a surprise inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing officials on 26.09.2015, 28.09.2015 and 28.10.2015, it was reported that there was a suppression of sales in purchase. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing officials, a revision notice was issued under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner has submitted his objections and sought for sales invoices made by the second respondent and also sought to cross-examine the second respondent. In spite of repeated requests, the opportunity of cross- examining the second respondent was not given to the petitioner. Ultimately, the impugned order in TIN No.33193763102/2009-10, dated 08.12.2016, came to be passed, wherein it is stated that in the sworn statement given before the inspecting officials on 02.08.2015, the petitioner has categorically admitted his purchase and therefore, the opportunity to cross-examination was not required and imposed the penalty for the suppression of sales. Challenging the order, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Controverting the said submissions, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would vehemently contend that the opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner on several occasions and the petitioner even though appeared for personal hearing, failed to avail the said opportunity and therefore, the final order came to be passed. Further, against the said order, an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner. However, without exhausting the appeal remedy, the petitioner has hastened to approach this Court and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner.

(3.) Whereas the learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that there was a criminal case in C.C.No.11 of 2013 decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, on 202018. The documents relied thereon would go to show that all the purchase invoices were marked as documents in Ex.P.4 series numbering 15. The petitioner cannot state that he was not given any opportunity and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and it is only open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.