At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
For the Petitioner: P. Rajkumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: J. Adithya Reddy, Government Advocate (T).
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.B1/661/2012 dated 25.07.2012 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to refund the DS amount of Rs.8,57,459/- to the petitioner.)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. At this stage of hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to challenge the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, dated 25.07.2012.
3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, this Court finds that it is appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition, permitting the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available, under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioner filing the application for revision, challenging the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 25.07.2012, the authority concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits, and in accordance with law, within a p
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eriod of three months thereafter. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.