JUDGMENT

( Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J )

This appeal, filed by the writ petitioner, is directed against the order dated 19.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.20869 of 2019.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2018 issued by the respondent stating that on verification of Form WW filed by the appellant for the year 2013-14, certain defects had been noticed and that the appellant had not reported the purchase turnover to the Government in their monthly return. The appellant was granted 15 days time to file their objections to the said notice dated 12.04.2018 along with documentary evidences. The appellant submitted their objections on 16.05.2018 stating that the proposal made in the said notice dated 12.04.2018 was incorrect and referred to the decision in the case of M/s.J.K.M. Graphics Solutions (P) Ltd. The objections were presented to the respondent in person. As seen from the acknowledgment given by the respondent in the office copy of the objections, which contained the signature and seal of the respondent, the date of receipt was mentioned as

16.05.2018.

3. The appellant's grievance is that though the objections were given by the appellant and received by the respondent on 16.05.2018, the assessment order was passed, which is dated 11.05.2018, without taking note of the factual position. This prompted the appellant to file the writ petition before this Court.

4. The learned Single Bench opined that the appellant should avail the alternate remedy of appeal provided under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and assigned reasons and after referring to certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissed the writ petition.

Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

5. We have elaborately heard Mr.K.Kulandaivelu, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

6. So far as the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of The Constitution of India, even in cases where alternate remedy is provided, discretion is being exercised by this Court. This exercise of discretion is to be done cautiously and the Courts imposed a self restraint upon themselves while exercising their jurisdiction especially in matters arising under a Taxation Statute. However, this is not an absolute bar and there have been instances where Courts have exercised jurisdiction taking note of the fact and circumstances of each case.

7. We are prompted to make the above observations on the ground that the respondent has received the objections filed by the appellant on 16.05.2018. If, according to the respondent, he has already completed the assessment and passed an order on 11.05.2018, the respondent could have informed the appellant that already an order of assessment has been passed, since the appellant did not file their objections to the notice dated 12.04.2018. However, the respondent did not inform the appellant, rather received the objections and endorsed the receipt of the same on 16.05.2018. Apart from that, in the assessment order dated 11.05.2018, the respondent would admit that the appellant had received the notice dated 12.04.2018 sent by registered post on 18.04.2018. If that is so, then the appellant had time to submit their objections till 03.05.2018. If the appellant had not submitted their objections within the said time limit, then the respondent could have recorded the same in the assessment order dated 11.05.2018. Further, the defect, which is alleged against the appellant, is on account of verification of the other end dealers namely Annexure II through the Departmental Website. If such is the issue, it is necessary that the appellant should be given an effective opportunity and the Department can also exercise their discretion to departmentally verify the correctness of the transactions.

8. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant on