1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A.(MD)Nos.912 and 913 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 Tvl.Mangai Agencies, represented by its Proprietor, T.Meenakshi .. Appellant in the above appeals/Petitioner vs. 1.Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), C.T.Buildings, Madurai Road, Viruthunagar. 2.Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-111, C.T.Buildings Sachaipuram, Sivakasi, Viruthunagar District. .. Respondents in the above appeals/ Respondents Writ Appeal (MD) No.912 of 2011 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 28.07.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8358 of 2011. Writ Appeal (MD) No.913 of 2011 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 28.07.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8359 of 2011. PRAYER in WP.8358 & 8359/2011: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Appeal orders passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. and year CST 39/2007 and CST 151/2002 dated 09.02.2010 received by the petitioner on 19.03.2010 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to pass orders after affording opportunity to the petitioner for a personal hearing. For appellant : Mr.Mohd.Ibrahim Ali for M/s.A.S.Mujibur Rahman (both appeals) For respondents: Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate (both appeals) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J) By mutual consent, the Writ Appeals themselves taken up for final hearing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. These two Writ Appeals have been filed by one and the same appellant challenging the order of the Writ Court dated 28.7.2011 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8358 and 8359 of 2011 dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner in respect of Assessment Years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 under the Central Sales Tax Act. Actually, the said Writ Petitions were filed seeking for the relief of quashing of the orders of the first respondent, in Appeal No and year CST 39/2007 and CST 151/2002 dated 9.2.2010 with a consequential direction to the first respondent to pass orders after affording opportunity to the petitioner for a personal hearing. The Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petitions mainly on the ground that the appellant is having an alternative remedy of preferring a statutory revision. On the other hand, as it is the grievance of the appellant that the appellate authority has passed the impugned orders without affording any opportunity and the order passed was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court can very well invoke the writ jurisdiction. 3. Mr.Mohd.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellate authority/the first respondent herein has passed the impugned orders without affording any opportunity to the appellant. The learned counsel put forward two contentions. Firstly, no opportunity was given to the appellant and secondly, the Assessing Officer has not considered the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sakthi Paper Stores, rep. by its proprietor, K.SP.Subbaiah Chettiar vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai-5 and another, in a batch of Writ Petitions viz., in W.P.Nos.809 to 816 of 2006, wherein this Court has held that purchasing dealers alone are bound to verify the genuineness of the "C" forms. 4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the reading of the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority makes it clear that the said orders were passed without affording any opportunity to the appellant and as such, the same are liable to be set aside. It is further pointed out that even the assessing authority has not considered regarding the genuineness of "C" forms on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court in the order dated 12.7.2007 passed in W.P.Nos.809 to 816 of 2006. As far as the orders of the appellate authority are concerned, there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority and there is no indication in the order of the appellate authority to the effect that the appellant has put forward any such contention regarding "C" forms and as such, now it cannot be contended that the appellate authority has not given any opportunity to putforth his case regarding verification of genuineness of "C" forms on the basis of the orders of this Court passed in a batch of Writ Petitions referred to above. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contention put forward by either side and perused the materials available on record including the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 9.2.2010 and also the impugned orders dated 28.7.2011 passed by the Writ Court. 7. In respect of the availability of the alternative remedy, it is well-settled that the availability of alternative remedy is itself not a bar for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has re-iterated the said settled principle of law in Committee of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Management & Anr. V. Vice Chancellor & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 101 as follows : “20. Apart from the fact that a statutory authority cannot consider the validity of a Statute, as has been urged before us by Mr.Choudhari, it is beyond any doubt or dispute that availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. It may exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where the same would not be an efficacious one. 21. Furthermore, when an order has been passed by an authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the superior courts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although there exists an alternative remedy. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the observations made by this Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors (1998) 8 SCC 1 : “15. ... But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. ...” (See also Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. V. C.K.Rajan & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546).” 8. In view of the above said settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is very much maintainable. 9. A perusal of the orders of the appellate authority makes it abundantly clear that the appellant was not given any personal hearing before passing the impugned orders. A reading of the orders further reveal that the appellate authority went into the grounds of appeal and ultimately, rejected the two appeals. Apart from that, a perusal of the assessment orders would reveal that the assessing authority has not considered the principles laid down by this Court as per the order dated 12.7.2007 passed in a batch of Writ Petitions referred to above regarding the verification of genuineness of "C" forms as this Court has held that it is only the purchasing dealers who are liable for verification of genuineness of "C" forms and not the selling dealers. It is not disputed that the appellant is only a selling dealer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is much force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to the effect that both the authorities failed to consider the relevant points involved in this matter. 10. In view of all these factors, these Writ Appeals are allowed and the assessment orders dated 15.12.1999, 29.1.1999 and revised orders dated 30.3.2001 and 28.3.2002 passed by the assessing authority and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 order passed by the appellate authority viz., the first respondent herein dated 09.02.2010, and the orders of the Writ Court dated 28.7.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.8358 and 8359 of 2011 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent viz., the assessing authority to consider the matter afresh by affording opportunity to the appellant in the light of the principles laid down by this Court as per its order dated 12.7.2007 passed in W.P.Nos.809 to 816 of 2006. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs. sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), C.T.Buildings, Madurai Road, Viruthunagar. 2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-111, C.T.Buildings Sachaipuram, Sivakasi, Viruthunagar District. + 2 ccs' to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, SR No.37762 W.A.(MD)Nos.912 and 913 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 02.11.2011 (asvm) RJ/18.11.11 4p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/