This batch of writ appeals, filed by the Revenue against a common order holding a specific VAT proviso inapplicable to manufacturers, was disposed of by relying on a subsequent judgment of the same court. The court declared no separate issue to be adjudicated.
Writ appeals dismissed by relying on the ratio of W.A.No.1260 of 2017.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
... Appellants/Respondents in W.A.(MD) No.1613 of 2021
Chennai – 600 005.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
Madurai.
... Appellants/Respondents in W.A.(MD) Nos.2213 of 2021
2/18
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
Commercial Tax Building, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.
... Appellants/Respondents in W.A.(MD) Nos.129 and 130 of 2022
3/18
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
Jawahar Nagar, Thirumangalam.
... Appellants/Respondents in W.A.(MD) Nos.201, 202, 206 and 207 of 2022
Vs.
Tvl.Bharath Traders, Represented by its Partner, N.Venkatesh, aged about 34 years, No.3, Sappani Koil Street, South Veli Street, Madurai – 625 001.
Tvl.R.V.D.Tools House, Represented by its Proprietor, R.V.D.Ramaiah, S/o.V.Duraisamy, Nos.202 and 203, Thilagar Thidal, Tamilsangam Road, Madurai – 625 001.
Tvl.Veyil Vantha Ambal & Co., Represented by its Proprietor, V.P.M.Muthuvijayan, S/o.M.Panjavarnam, No.2/82, Thallakulam Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District – 623 707. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
in W.A.(MD) Nos.2218 to 2220 of 2021
Tvl.Veyil Vantha Ambal & Co., Represented by its Proprietor, V.P.M.Muthuvijayan, S/o.M.Panjavarnam, No.3/456-B, Madurai Mandapam Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District – 623 707. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.2252 of 2021 Tvl.Techny Chemy, Rep. by its Proprietrix, Sasikala Ravi, No.24 – Patel Street, Ayyappa Nagar, Trichy – 21. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.170 of 2022
Tvl.Olive Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietrix, A.Esther Rani, No.38, Nadarkudiruppu, Zion Hill, Kovankulam, (Via) Parappadi, Tirunelveli District – 627 151.
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) Nos.183 and 184 of 2022
Tvl.Srinivasa Marine Chemicals, Represented by its Proprietor, S.Ayyanan, aged about 59 years, No.239/2D, Vadakarai Village, Malakottai, Thirumangalam, Madurai District – 625 706.
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) Nos.201 and 202 of 2022
Tvl.East Coast Seaweed Inc, Represented by its Proprietrix, A.Mahalakshmi, W/o. Ayyanan, No.19/50, Veeran Street, Thirumangalam,
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
Madurai District – 625 706.
... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) Nos.206 and 207 of 2022
A.M.N.Mariappan ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.A.(MD) Nos.1147 to 1151 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the common order dated 30.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD) Nos.15103 of 2015, 16518 of 2017, 12644 to 12646, 12643 of 2016, 18191, 21907, 21104, 21105 and 11425 to 11428 of 2016, 7821, 7819, 7823, 7822, 7820 of 2015 and to allow the appeals.
For Appellants all the : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Writ Appeals Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent in W.A. : Mr.V.Rooban (MD) Nos. 1613, 2218 to 2220 and 2252 of 2021, 129, 170, 183, 184, 201, 202, 206, 207 and 1147 to 1151 of 2022
For Respondent in W.A. : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran (MD) No.2213 of 2021 * * *
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J. )
These writ appeals have been filed by the
Revenue, assailing the common order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos.15103 of 2015, 16518 of 2017,
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
12644 to 12646, 12643 of 2016, 18191, 21907, 21104, 21105 and 11425 to 11428 of 2016, 7821, 7819, 7823, 7822, 7820 of 2015, holding that the proviso to Section 19 (2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, “the TNVAT Act”) inserted by section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Fifth Amendment) Act No.28 of 2013 with effect from 11.11.2013 is not applicable to the manufacturers and allowing the writ petitions.
Government Pleader is appearing for the appellants in these Writ Appeals and Mr.Rooban, learned counsel in W.A.(MD) Nos.1613, 2218 to 2220 and 2252 of 2021, 129, 170, 183, 184, 201, 202, 206, 207 and 1147 to 1151 of 2022 and Mr.A.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel in W.A.(MD) No.2213 of 2021 appearing for the respondents.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
etc. batch (The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s.Everest Industries
Limited) and hence, this writ appeal may be disposed of in the same lines.
“Conclusion:
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? and the same is quoted below for ready reference:
?5. In our respectful view, the decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the said decision has not held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an absolute bar. We are of the said view after noting the observations/findings rendered by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the following paragraphs :
?11. In the backdrop of these facts, the central question is: whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent? As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
[AIR 1969 SC 556] and also Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. [2011 (14) SCC 337]. In Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1419], the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person.....
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
Corporation Limited (supra). In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose. ......
19........ Pertinently, no finding has been recorded by the High Court that it was a case of violation of principles of natural justice or non compliance of statutory requirements in any manner. Be that as it may, since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal had expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all.?
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
wide, the Court must exercise self imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition. Further, in paragraph 15, the Hon-ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. In addition, in paragraph 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that when the High Court refuses to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, it would be necessary for the Court to record that there was no case of violation of the principles of natural justice or non-compliance of statutory requirements in any manner.
(i) if there is unfairness in the action of the Statutory Authority;
(ii) if there is unreasonableness in the action of the Statutory Authority;
(iii) if perversity writs large in the action taken by the Authority;
(iv) if the Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue and
(v) if there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court will step in
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
and exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
order.?
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
writ petitions on the technicality of limitation, that too, when the batch was pending. We set aside the said order of the learned Judge and dispose of the writ appeals in WA.Nos.1446 and 1447/2021 accordingly.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
disposed of, in terms of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 31.03.2022 in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 etc. batch. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 01.12.2022
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sj
To
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
W.A.(MD)Nos.1613 of 2021 etc., batch
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
sj
01.12.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ appeals challenging the applicability of Section 19(2)(v) of the TN Value Added Tax Act to manufacturers should be disposed of in light of a subsequent judgment of this court.
Whether the general principles on rejection of writs under Article 226 due to limitation or alternative remedy apply in these specific revenue appeals.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Pvt LtdReferred¶148
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Pvt Ltd
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶131
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536] · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Tvl.Bharath Traders
Tvl.R.V.D.Tools House
Tvl.Veyil Vantha Ambal & Co.
R.M.AHADEVAN
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
