Nokia India Private Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)-Iv on 9 December, 2014

[Cites 70, Cited by 7]

Madras High Court

Nokia India Private Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)-Iv on 9 December, 2014

Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:09 .12.2014

Date of Reserving the Judgment
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment
14.11.2014
09.12.2014

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM

W.P. Nos.22066 to 22072 of 2014 &
Connected Mps.

W.P.No.22066 of 2014

Nokia India Private Ltd.
Rep. By its Authorized Signatory
Ms.Nilanjana sur .. Petitioner

1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-iv
Large Tax Payers Union
V Floor, Dugar Towers,
No.34, Marshall Road, Egmore
Chennai 8.

2.State of Tamil Nadu
through the Secretary
Department of Commercial Taxes
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009.

3.Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
PAPJM Building, Greams Road
Chennai 600006. .. Respondents

Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records comprised in the impugned order and the consequent impugned notice of demand both issued by the respondent No.1, and both dated 26.6.2014 bearing TIN/33160640640/2006-07 for the assessment year 2006-07 and all proceedings pursuant thereto and quash the same as unconstitutional.

For petitioner .. Mr.Arvind P Datar,Sr.Counsel
for Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan
Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva
Mr.J.P.Singh
Mr.Garmia Chauhan

For Respondents .. Dr.Anita Sumanth, Spl.G.P.
Asstd by
Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, AGP
Mr.Cibhi Vishnu, AGP
Mr.V.Haribabu, AGP

*************

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the prayer in all these Writ Petitions are identical these Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2.The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 ('Act'),. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturer of Mobile Phones, parts and accessories thereof. The challenge in these Writ Petitions is to assessment orders passed by the first respondent under the provisions of Act for seven assessment years from 2006-07 to 2012-13.

3.The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Officials of the Audit Department of the respondent from 29.01.2013 to 07.02.2013 and from 26.2.2013 to 28.01.2013. In the course of audit, the following defects were pointed for the seven assessment years, which are for the Assessment Year 2006-07, suppression of sale of taxable scrap; for the Assessment year 2007-08, suppression of sale of taxable scrap and non payment of tax on the sale of assets; for the Assessment year 2008-09, suppression of sale of taxable scrap and non payment of tax on the sale of assets; for the Assessment year 2009-10, suppression of sale of taxable scrap and non payment of tax on the sale of assets; for the Assessment year 2010-11, suppression of sale of taxable scrap and non payment of tax on the sale of assets; for the Assessment year 2011-12, suppression of sale of taxable scrap, non payment of tax on the sale of assets and incorrect rate of tax on the sale of accessories and parts on mobile phone and for the Assessment year 2012-13, suppression of sale of taxable scrap, non payment of tax on the sale of assets and incorrect rate of tax on the sale of accessories and parts on mobile phone.

4.In the light of the above, the first respondent issued notices proposing to revise the assessments for all the seven years under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act and proposing to levy penalty under section 27(3) of the Act apart from demanding interest under section 42(3) of the Act for belated payment of tax. Separate notices were issued for all the seven assessment years and the petitioner was called upon to file their objections. The petitioner filed their objections resisting the proposal made in the notices. Thereupon the first respondent passed the impugned orders re-determining the total and taxable turnover of the petitioner under section 27(1)(a) of the Act demanding interest and levying penalty. Challenging the seven assessment orders, the petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions.

5.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petitions, contending that the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy under the Act and without preferring statutory appeal, the petitioner cannot maintain these Writ Petitions. The contentions on the merits of the petitioner's case have also been dealt with in the counter affidavit.

6.Mr.Arvind P.Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for all the seven assessment years, three issues are raised common, viz., (i) that best judgment assessment under section 27(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous as the books of accounts of the petitioner is the basis of the impugned assessment; (ii) Imposition of huge penalty of Rs.66.02 crores under section 27(3) of the Act is not valid and (iii) Equal Time addition of probable omission and suppression of scrap sales is unwarranted. The other issues are with regard to tax on export of capital assets which is common for five years from 2007-08 to 2011-12 (W.P.Nos.22067/2014, 22068/2014, 22069/2014, 22070/2014 and 22071/2014); tax imposed on transfer of business to Nokia Siemens Networks Private Limited (hereinafter called as "NSNPL") for the year 2007-08 (W.P.No.22067/2014); tax on disallowance of sales returns, for four years from 2009-10 to 2012-13 (W.P.Nos.22069/2014, 22070/2014, 22071/2014, 22072/2014) and demand of tax on higher rate on parts and accessories for two years viz. 2011-12 & 2012-13.

7. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the impugned assessment orders have been made contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to best judgment assessment and therefore, the petitioner need not be relegated to the statutory Appellate Authority to challenge the impugned orders. It is submitted that exhaustion of alternate remedy is a rule of convenience or discretion rather rule of law, which does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court; where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or contrary to law, a petition would lie to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [AIR 1985 SCC 1147], has held that exhaustion of alternate remedy to be a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law and does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Further, it is submitted that the exhaustion of alternate remedy in the present case is not efficacious, since it would place an onerous burden of pre-deposit of huge amount on the petitioner, as the mandatory condition precedent to filing of appeal.

8. On the issues which arises in all these seven assessment orders, the following submissions were made in seriatem:

8.1 Best Judgment Assessment under section 27(1)(a) of the Act:-

The first respondent has passed the impugned orders under section 27(1)(a) of the Act, which deals with best judgment assessment where turnover has escaped assessment to tax. However,all the transactions on which tax has been demanded were duly recorded in the books of the petitioner and therefore the first respondent erroneously invoked the best judgement assessment under section 27(1)(a) of the Act. The first respondent having relied upon the books of accounts of the petitioner could not have made the assessments on best of judgement. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MADRAS v. S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR AND SONS [28 STC 700], has held that where quantum of turnover is determined based on accounts books, there can be no ground for making the best judgement assessment and if certain items were not included in the turnover or discovered from the dealer accounts books, the assessing authority includes those items in the dealers turnover, the assessment cannot be regarded as based on best judgement and penalty cannot be levied in respect of such items. It is further submitted that the decision in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. INDIAN METAL AND METALLURGICAL CORPORATION [ 1978 (41) STC 165]. Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,M.P. v. H.M.ESUFAIL [(1973) 2 SCC 137], pointed out the distinction between the best judgement assessment and assessment based on accounts submitted by the assessee and observed that assessment made on the basis of the accounts maintained where the assessing officer adds item that might have been omitted should not be a best judgement assessment and only where no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained by the assessee, the assessee can be assessed on the basis of best judgement. On the above contentions the learned counsel submitted that the assessment made by the first respondent on best of judgement under section 27(1)(a) of the Act are illegal and liable to be set aside.

8.2 Imposition of penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act:-

On the issue regarding imposition of penalty under section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, learned Senior counsel submitted that when the quantum of turnover is determined based on the books of accounts, there can be no grounds for making a best judgment assessment as held in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra). Further, it is submitted that penalty does not arise merely upon the proof of default and penalty will not be imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or acted in conscious disregarded of its obligation. It is submitted that no such allegation was made against the petitioner alleging dishonest conduct, contumacious behaviour and the question of imposing penalty does not arise. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. v. STATE OF ORISSA [ AIR 1970 SC 253]. It is submitted that the words 'willful' and 'suppression', signify conscious, deliberate and intentional withholding of information with mala fide, and not an unintentional failure or a failure due to inadvertence. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of Tamil Nadu Housing Board V. Collector of Central Excise [Madras 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC); Collector of Central Excise V. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276(SC); Padmini Products V. Collector of Excise [1989(43) E.L.T. 195 (SC)]; Pushpam Pharmaceuticals V. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (SC)]; Anand Nishikawa V. Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut [2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (SC)]; Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [ 2005 (189) E.L.T.257(SC)]; Commissioner of Central Excise Belgium V.Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. [2008 (226) E.L.T.161(SC); Continental foundation V. Commr. Of C.Ex.,Chandigarh [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)]'; Uniworth Textiles Ltd., V. CCE Raipur [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)] and Cosmic Dye Chemical V. Collector of Central Excise,Bombay[(1995) 6 SCC 117].

8.3 Equal time addition:-

Addressing on the next issue relating to equal time addition, which is common for seven years, it is submitted that while the audit wing of the petitioner were preparing for audit by department, it came to their notice that scrap sales from SEZ unit were inadvertently not declared in returns due to clerical error and tax had not been paid thereon. This was disclosed to the Audit Officials of the Department by the petitioner and tax and interest was voluntarily paid by the petitioner on 28.02.2014. However, without considering the conduct of the petitioner in suo motu paying the tax along with interest on the turnover of scrap sales which was inadvertently not disclosed in the monthly return, the respondent has made equal time addition on the ground of probable suppression and omission. It is submitted that equal time addition is illegal and arbitrary and the levy of such equal time addition was held to be not sustainable in the decisions in the case of Jayalakshmi Oil Mills V. State of Tamil Nadu [(2013) 58 VST 535]; Sri Ramu Furniture Co. V. State of Tamil Nadu [(2013) 57 VST 383 and S.V.Cycles stores V. Commercial Tax Officer [(2011) 46 VST 565]. It is submitted that though the petitioner relied on the decisions, the assessing officer has not even attempted to distinguish the said decisions, which are binding on all authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu as these decisions are of this Court. It is further submitted that equal addition to the turnover has resulted in double taxation, since the petitioner has already paid tax and interest on the turnover of scrap sales. Even assuming that there was willful non- disclosure, that by itself is not the sufficient ground for equal addition. By referring to the observation made by the assessing officer in the order of assessment, it is submitted that the assessing officer accepted that the petitioner had disclosed the scrap sales to the Audit Team. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there was willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover merely on the ground that at the time of re-assessment of the escaped turnover on the basis of best judgment, the turnover was indicated and this is not enough to hold the dealer as having willfully suppressed the turnover. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. S.M.Baba Sahib [(1979) 44 STC 299].

8.4 Tax on export of capital assets:-

On the next issue viz. tax on export of capital assets, which issue arises in five years viz. 2007-08 to 2011-12, it is submitted that the imposition of tax on export of capital assets was wholly without jurisdiction and hit by Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. In terms of Section 18 of the TNVAT Act, export sales are zero rated for the purpose of TNVAT Act and the question of levying tax on the export of capital assets does not arise and is illegal. The respondent erroneously took the figure of sale of fixed assets from the fixed asset schedule annexed to the balance sheet and levied tax thereon treating it as local sale stating that assesee had not disclosed the same in the tax returns. It is submitted that the petitioner clarified to the Audit team about the factual position and copies of export documents for sample transactions were submitted by the petitioner. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has operations in 22 States other than Tamil Nadu and the asset disposal figures provided in the financial statement were all-India figures and bifurcation of assets disposed from Tamil Nadu and other States was also provided. However, the first respondent had stated that the petitioner was unable to present State-wise break up and corresponding sales vouchers for its claim for exports. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order was based on surmises and conjectures. Relying upon the assessment order for the year 2007-08, wherein the value of the capital assets transfer to Nokia Siemens Networks Private Limited (NSNPL), on which tax was demanded had been separately confirmed and has also been added in the value of export sales for the purpose of levying tax thereon. Therefore, the respondent ought to have considered that aspect in so far as export sales of capital assets.

8.5 Transfer of business to M/s.NSNPL:-

The next issue which arises for the assessment year 2007-08 (W.P.No.22067/2014) relates to transfer of business to NSNPL. It is submitted that the business was transferred as a going concern and it is a transfer of a business as a whole and clearly falls with an Explanation III to section 2(41) of TNVAT Act and that the petitioner had three business operations viz. (i) Mobile Phone Division, (ii) Network Division and (iii) Research and Development and all the three lines of business are separate and from 01.04.2007, the petitioner transferred all its assets and liabilities relating to 'Network Division' to NSNPL, which is a joint venture between Siemens, Germany and Nokia Corporation, Finland and the petitioner ceases to carry on the said business and even now the petitioner is not engaged in any Network business and the said business is carried on by a separate legal entity. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner allegedly sold only part of plant and machinery and inventory to NSNPL, is not acceptable and under the Income Tax Act, the transaction has been regarded as a slump sale. The entire business has been transferred as a whole and the Network business constitute a separate identifiable business. Therefore, it is submitted that the tax demanded on transfer of assets to NSNPL is not tenable. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes V. K.Behanan Thomas [1977 (39) STC 325] and in the case of Monsanto Chemicals of India (P) limited V. State of Tamil Nadu [(1982) 51 STC 278].

8.6 Tax on disallowance of sales returns:-

On the next issue relating to tax on disallowance of sales returns, it is submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Assessing Officer under this head and therefore it is not assessable.

8.7 Tax at higher rate on parts and accessories:-

On the issue relating to tax at higher rate on parts and accessories, the learned Senior counsel advanced arguments in terms of the proviso under section 3(2) of TNVAT Act that all spare parts, components and accessories of such goods shall also be taxed at the same rates as that of the goods, if such spare parts, components and accessories are not specifically enumerated in the First Schedule and made liable to tax under that Schedule. Therefore it is stated that Headphones and Speakers which are accessories should also be taxed at the same rate as the goods. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior counsel submitted that so far as the issue regarding tax on higher rates parts and accessories, the petitioner is willing to go before the Assessing Officer and explain and justify their stand.

9. Dr.Anita Sumanth, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable, all issues involve factual details, appreciation of balance sheet, examination of accounts etc. and the petitioner should be directed to avail the 'statutory Appellate remedy.

9.1 As regards the decisions which are relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to alternate remedy, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the present cases would require thorough examination of disputed questions of fact. Therefore the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

9.2 As regards the contention regarding the imposition of penalty under section 27(3) of the Act, it is submitted that all the decisions relied on by the petitioner are all arising out of the judgments rendered in Appeals filed by the Department or the assessee, wherein assessee had exhausted the Statutory Appellate remedies. Further, it is submitted that the decision in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra), the matter arises under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of section 12(2) of the said Act and rendered the decision and the said provision is not in para materia with section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act. The language employed under section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, is distinct and the scope and ambit of the said provision is much wider than Section 12(2) of the 1959 Act which is in paramateria with Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act.

9.3 As regards the issue relating to equal addition, it is submitted that Audit referred to in the impugned order of assessment is audit officials of the enforcement wing and not an internal audit of the petitioner. Therefore, when there is escapement of income section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act would stand attracted as the said provision states "where, for any reason", and the scope is much wider than Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act.

9.4 The penalty imposed on the petitioner is sought to be justified by contending that there is no voluntary disclosure and payment of tax was only after it was detected by the Audit Department and the amount having not been disputed and the subsequent conduct of the dealer in paying the tax amounts to willful non-disclosure warranting penalty under section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act. In such circumstances, when suppression was detected, the quantity of addition to be made in a particular case cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High in the case of V.ABOOBACKER v. STATE OF KERALA [(2010) 27 VST 308 (Ker)(FB)] and the decision in the case of A.B.SONS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2012) 50 VST 234 (Mad)].

9.5 With regard to the issue relating to tax on export of capital assets, it is submitted that the assessment should be based on records. It has to be established by the assessee and it is not sufficient by way of mere statement. Further, despite demand made, by the Department, to produce evidence, the petitioner failed to produce evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in demanding tax on the alleged export of capital assets.

9.6 As regards the contention that the transfer of business of NSNPL was transfer of business as a whole, it is submitted that the assessment order clearly states that the sale is only part of plant and machinery and stock and it is not a sale of whole business and in any event it is a question of fact to be agitated before the Appellate Authority. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Vs. Dat Pathe [(1985) 59 STC 374].

9.7 Further the other issues relating to sales returns and tax at higher rate on parts and accessories are all questions of fact to be adjudicated before the appellate authority.

10. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions are important and it is immaterial to see as to how the matter travelled upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and what is the material is the principle laid down. In this regard, reference was made to the decision in the case of East India Commercial Co.,Ltd., Vs. Collector of Customs reported in AIR 1962 SC 1893. Therefore, it is submitted that the decisions relied on by the petitioner as regards best judgment assessments are fully applicable. The other contentions raised earlier were reiterated and it is submitted that there is no statutory provision for equal addition and therefore not sustainable. Further, it is submitted that the allegation of suppression was only with regard to scrap sales, whereas the penalty has been imposed on the entire demand, which is wholly illegal and the impugned proceedings are vitiated on account of the total non-application of mind. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not assign any reason as to how he came to the conclusion that only part of the business was sold nor there is a finding that the network business was not sold. It is submitted that the sale of the network business was in 2007 and audit was conducted in 2013, and there was no material available with the Assessing Officer as no enquiry was conducted. There is no discussion why the sales returns is disallowed. On the above grounds, the learned Senior counsel sought for setting aside the impugned orders.

11. By way of further reply, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Section 12(2) of the Madras Sales Tax Act corresponds to section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. The issue dealt with in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra), is a prima facie assessment, whereas in the instant case it is a reassement under section 27 of the TNVAT Act, which gives wide power to the assessing authority and the assessment can be reopened upto to the period of six years from the date of assessment. Therefore, it is submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pertaining to best judgment assessment had been rendered interpreting the provision of law which existed at that point of time and the power under section 27 of the TNVAT Act is different and therefore the decisions are not applicable.

12. Further, by referring to Form No.I, which is a format of the monthly return, it is submitted that all details which are required to be furnished are primary details and the assessee are bound to furnish the same and the disclosure commences from filing the returns and the assessing authority was justified in imposing penalty and equal addition. Hence, it is submitted that the matter involves adjudication into disputed questions of fact and the Judgments relied on by the petitioner are all arising out of orders passed in appeals filed against the orders of statutory appellate authorities or revisional authorities.

13.The learned Senior counsel in reply to the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), submitted that Form No.I, relied on by the Special Government Pleader has no relevance to the facts of this case, since it is a statutory format for a monthly return and the exempted sales will not be reflected in the monthly return and in any event, such a contention is being raised for the first time and the assessment order also does not proceed on those lines.

14.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

15.The following issues arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions:

(i)Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable, when the petitioner has an appellate remedy as against the impugned assessment orders?

(ii)Whether the best judgment assessment made under section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act are bad in law as the quantum of turnover has been determined based on the books of accounts and there can be no grounds for making best judgment assessment ?

(iii)Whether imposition of penalty under section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act that too on the entire demand was justified ?

(iv)Whether equal time addition on probable omission and suppression of scrap sales was warranted ?

(v)Whether the Assessing Authority was right in treating the export sale of capital assets as local sales, on the ground that the assessee has not disclose the same in the tax return ?

(vi)Whether the transfer of business to NSNPL was by way of sale of business as a whole falling under Explanation III to section 2(41) of the TNVAT Act ?

(vii)Whether tax on disallowance on sales returns is justified ? and

(viii)Whether the rate of tax collected on parts and accessories are proper ?

16.The preliminary issue among the eight issues is regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The necessity to deal with the issue Nos. 2 to 8 would depend upon the result of issue No.1. The respondent's preliminary objection is that the petitioners approached this Court without exhausting the appeal remedy available under the Act; that the dealer has got substantive remedy to prefer statutory appeal which is a creature of statute with legal sanctity and there is no justifiable reason to bypass the appellate remedy. It is further submitted that all the issues raised by the petitioner involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact and therefore Writ Petitions are not maintainable and the petitioner should be directed to file appeals as against the impugned assessment orders.

17.Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that exhaustion of alternate remedy is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than the rule of law. When the petitioner has contended that the impugned assessment orders are vitiated on account of total non-application of mind, made in violation of principles of natural justice, failure to consider the relevant facts and being devoid of reasons, the petitioner is fully justified in filing these Writ Petitions before this Court, moreso, when the petitioner has specifically pleaded and established that there has been serious violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to put forth their contentions. That there is no controversy about the legal principle that existence of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, to consider this issue, it has to be seen as to whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice and whether the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to put forth their contentions, whether there is any error in the decision making process, whether the findings of the assessing officer is supported by reasons and whether there are any jurisdictional errors.

18.As noticed above, the period covered is for seven assessment years from 2006-07 to 2012-13. For all assessment years, there are four common issues and the remaining issues are confined to a few or one year.

19.The petitioner had filed the monthly return in Form No.I in respect of all the assessment years under section 21 of the Act and they were deemed to have been assessed under section 22(2) of the Act. The place of business of the petitioner was audited by the Enforcement Wing officials from 29.01.2013 to 07.02.2013 and from 26.2.2013 to 28.2.2013. The petitioner's case is that their books of accounts were perused and the impugned assessment orders are not best judgment assessments. To support this proposition, series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been relied on and in particular, the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra), arising out of an assessment under the Madras Sales Tax Act, 1959.

20.The other contentions relating to the manner and proportionality in imposing penalty. The petitioner would state that there is no willful non-disclosure, that their conduct was not contumacious and there is no justification for levy of penalty and the authority mechanically imposed penalty in utter disregard to the settled law with regard to the circumstances which should be taken into consideration while imposing penalty. Apart from this, two common issues, in respect of each years the petitioners have focused that there is no probable omission or suppression and equal time addition on scrap sales was unwarranted and there is no jurisdiction to make equal addition and there is no such provision under the Act. In support of such contentions, the decisions of this Court in the cases of Jayalakshmi Oil Mills, Sri Ramu Furniture Co. and S.V.Cycles stores (supra) are relied on.

21.Imposition of tax on export of capital asset is said to be the outcome of non-application of mind as it is an export sale of capital assets and no sales tax could be levied.

22.Regarding transfer of business to NSNPL , the petitioner would state that it is a transfer of business as a whole and would fall under Explanation III to section 2 (41) of the Act and there was no material available with the Assessing Officer to state that only part of the business was transferred and no documents were called for and the observation is purely made on surmises and conjectures.

23.The petitioner would state that the transfer of network division to NSNPL has been treated as a slump sale under the Income Tax Act, which is a relevant factor. To support their contentions, the decision in the case of K.Behanan Thomas and Monsanto Chemicals of India (P) limited (supra) have been relied.

24.Regarding disallowance of sales returns and tax at higher rate on sales returns, it is stated that there is no reasons have been assigned by Assessing Officer in the impugned orders of assessment and as regards the tax on Parts and Accessories, the petitioner would state that they are statutorily bound to collect equal rate of tax in terms of section 3(2) of the TNVAT Act.

25.On a careful reading of the assessment orders, it is seen that the Assessing Officer had gathered details from the books of accounts of the petitioner and therefore the important issue to be considered is whether such assessment could be termed as an assessment on best of judgment and whether the scheme of TNVAT Act under section 27 is materially different from the best of judgment assessment under Section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which was dealt with in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra). The answer to such question would be crucial because it goes to the root of the matter affecting the jurisdiction of the officer. Further, the issue relating to equal addition has to be examined to see whether it was warranted on the admitted facts. The justifiability of the penalty on the entire demand to be considered and whether the legal principle laid down in various decisions were followed by the assessing officer. It has to be examined whether there was any material available with the assessing officer to state that transfer to NSNPL would not fall within Explanation III to Section 2(41) of the Act and whether the assessing officer assigned reasons on other issues. In the light of the above, the statutory remedy of filing an appeal will be extremely ill-suited to meet the demands of the situation arising in these cases and therefore, this Court is convinced that there are good and sufficient reasons to bypass the alternate remedy available under the Act.

26.In the light of the above facts and the contentions raised by both sides, this Court is of the view that the petitioner need not be relegated to avail the alternate remedy as it has been held in all cases that necessity to avail the alternative remedy may not arise and it is not a bar to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards the objection of the Revenue that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, it is no doubt true that the Act provides for an alternative remedy of filing an appeal. In a recent decision reported in [2011] 5 SCC 697 (Union of India (UOI vs.Tantia Construction Private Limited), on the issue of maintainability of a writ petition in the face of an alternative remedy provided under the Act, the apex court held that the presence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition. The apex court considered the decisions reported in [2003] 2 SCC 107 Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.), [2001] 10 SCC 491 (Modern Steel Industries v. State of U.P.), [2010] 3 SCC 321 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Super Highway Services), [2009] 14 SCC 451 (National SampleSurvey Organization v. Champa Properties Limited) as well as [1998] 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks ) and held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy, is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and there could be contingencies in which the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. The question to be decided is relating to the jurisdiction, manner of exercise of power by the Assessing Officer and the correctness and propriety of the decision making process and whether principles of natural justice was adhered. Therefore, it is held that the Writ Petitions are maintainable and cannot be rejected solely on the ground that as against the impugned assessment orders, the statute provides for alternate remedy. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.

27.As noticed above, two issues are common in all the cases viz. whether the impugned assessment orders are best judgement assessments while made under section 27(1)(a) of the Act.

28.The second common issue is whether the imposition of penalty was justified, that too on the entire tax demand.

29.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra) and submitted that where the quantum of turnover is based on accounts books, there can be no ground for making best judgment assessment. For the same proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M.P., VS. H.M.ESUFALI (1973) 2 SCC 137 (supra) and the decision in the case of INDIAN METAL AND METALLURGICAL CORPORATION (supra).

30.The learned Special Government Pleader sought to distinguish the decision by contending that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.G.JAYARAJ NADAR (supra) has considered the scope of section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales tax Act, 1959, which is not akin to section 27(1)(a) and the said provision is in paramateria with section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act. Therefore, the learned Special Government sought to distinguish the decision and contended that the power conferred on the Assessing Officer under section 27 (1)(a) of TNVAT Act is a very wide power.

31. To consider the contentions raised, it would be necessary to examine the relevant provisions under the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 and the TNVAT Act, 2006.

Section 12(2) of the Madras General Tax reads as follows:

"If no return is submitted by the dealer under sub-section (1) within the prescribed period, or if the return, submitted by him appears to the assessing authority to be incomplete or incorrect,the assessing authority shall, after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, assess the dealer to the best of its judgement.

Provided that before taking action under this sub-section the dealer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness or completeness of any return submitted by him."

Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act reads as follows:

"Section 22. Deemed assessment and procedure to be followed by assessing authority:-

1........

2........

3......

4.If no return is submitted by the dealer for any period of the year or if the return filed is incomplete or incorrect, or if not accompanied with any of the documents prescribed or proof of payment of tax, the assessing authority shall, after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, assess the dealer to the best of its judgement, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, after the completion of that year:

Provided that before taking action under this sub-section, the dealer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act reads as follows:

"Section 27.Assessment of escaped turnover and wrong availment of input tax credit.--

1 (a) Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), at any time within a period of six years from the date of assessment, determine to the best of its judgement the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary."

32. Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the assessing officer can assess the dealer to the best of its judgment under two contingencies viz. if no return is submitted by the dealer, under sub- section (1) of section (12), within the prescribed period, or if the return submitted by him to the Assessing Officer, appears to be incomplete or incorrect.

33. Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act, provides for one more contingency than what was provided under section 12(2) viz. if the return is not accompanied with any of the documents prescribed or proof of payment of tax.

34. Section 27 deals with assessment of escaped turnover and wrong availment of ITC. Sub clause (a) of section 27(1) provides for cases where whole or part of the turnover has escaped assessment to Tax and in such event the Assessing Officer is entitled to reopen and determine to the best of its judgement, the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary.

35. Thus, all the three provisions use the expression 'best of its judgement'. Therefore, to state that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were rendered in the context of the old Act cannot be applied to the cases on hand, is an incorrect submission since the question decided in all the case is, what is best judgment assessment.

36. Undoubtedly the power under section 27 (1)(a) of the Act, is a wider power with a limitation of six years dealing with assessment of escaped turnover and wrong availment of credit. Even while exercising such power, the authority may determine to the best of its judgement, the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover. The question is while exercising such power, what is best of judgement assessment? Though the expression is used in all the provisions which gives power to the authority to exercise its best of judgement, the underlying principles to be addressed is as to what could be considered as a best of judgement and under what circumstances it could be treated as best of judgment. Therefore the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would have a definite bearing on the cases on hand regardless of the provision which was the subject matter of interpretation of those decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the best of judgment assessment on a estimate, which the assessing authority has to make not capriciously, but,on settled and recognised principles of justice; an element of guess work is bound to be present in best judgement assessment, but it must have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. It was further pointed out where accounts books are available along with other records, there can be no ground for making best judgement assessment. If the quantum of turnover were based on the assessee's books, it cannot be treated as a best judgment assessment.

37. It was further pointed out that the distinction between best judgment assessment and assessment based on the Accounts submitted by an assessee must be borne in mind. Sometimes there may be trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee and the omissions may be unintended. In such circumstances, those accounts may be accepted as genuine and substantially correct, and assessment are made on the basis of the accounts maintained, eventhough the Assessing Officer may add back to the accounts those items that might have been omitted to be included. In such a case, the assessment made is not a best judgment assessment, as it is primarily made on the basis of the accounts maintained by the assessee. But, when the Assessing Officer, comes to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained by the assessee, he proceeds to assess the assessee on the basis of his best judgment. In doing so, he may take assistance as the assessee's accounts may afford, he may also rely on other information gathered by him, as well as the surrounding circumstances of the case. The assessments made on the basis of the assessee's account and those made on best judgement basis are on totally different types of assessments.

38. On a perusal of the impugned assessments in all the cases, the Assessing Officer has invoked his power under section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act and re-determined the total and taxable turnover. The assessment is not a best judgement assessment as the Assessing Officer has not rejected the accounts. The power under section 27(1)(a) has been invoked for reopening the assessments as certain defects were pointed out during the course of audit. Therefore, it cannot be stated that merely because Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act has been referred to in the impugned assessments, they are best judgment assessments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HM ESUFALI, held that what is true of the assessment must also be true of re-assessment because re-assessment is nothing but a fresh assessment. When re-assessment is made under Section 19, the former assessment is completely re-opened and in its place fresh assessment is made. While re-assessing a dealer, the assessing authority does not merely assess him on the escaped turnover but he assess him on his total estimated turnover. While making re-assessment under Section 19, if the assessing authority has no power to make best judgment assessment, all that the assessee needs to do to escape re-assessment is to refuse to file a return or refuse to produce his account-books. If the contention taken on behalf of the assessee is correct, the assessee can escape his liability to be re-assessed by adopting an obstructive attitude. It is difficult to conceive that such could be the position in law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that going by the language of section 27(1)(a) of the Act, the impugned assessment are best judgment assessments, but revision of assessments in contra distinction with best judgment assessments under Section 22(4) of the Act. Question No.2 is accordingly answered against the petitioner.

39. Having held that the impugned assessments are revision of assessments in exercise of the power conferred under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, we move on to consider the other questions and to examine as to the correctness of the assessment orders and in particular the decision making process.

40. One of the issues raised by the petitioners which is common for all the seven assessment years is the correctness of equal time addition on probable omission and suppression of scrap sales. It was stated that on verification of books of accounts, it was noticed that the petitioner has effected sale of scrap from Chennai Ware House at Kattupakkam and factory at Sriperumbudur and they have reported only sales turnover of scrap relating to the Warehouse and not reported the sales turnover of scrap relating to Chennai factory in the monthly returns. Therefore, the pre-revision notice proposed to tax the turnover of sale of scrap for the year 2006-2007. Similar observations were made for the six assessment years as well. Further, after detailing the alleged suppression on sale of scrap, it was stated that the dealer had failed to furnish the break-up details of the sales effected and hence the turnover as on 31st March is taken and tax levied at 4%. Further, it was stated that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the taxable turnover and failed to pay tax on the taxable turnover of scrap sales and but for the inspection, the suppression would not have come to light, therefore, the possibility of probable suppression and omission cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it was proposed that the same warrants equal time addition for probable omission and suppression. Further, it was proposed to levy penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act. Further, it was stated that though the petitioner had paid the difference of tax belatedly on 06.02.2013, they are liable to pay interest under Section 42(3) of the Act. The petitioner submitted their objection stating that while reconciling the accounts, while preparing for audit, the company had noticed that certain scrap sales from Chennai factory have been inadvertently not included in the monthly VAT/CST returns filed by the company. After realising such mistake, the company suo motu disclosed the said transaction to the audit team and immediately paid the tax amount along with interest. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner had already deposited the tax liability on the scrap sale turnover, which was inadvertently not disclosed in the monthly returns due to clerical error. Therefore it is submitted that an equal addition to the turnover would result in double taxation of the taxable turnover which cannot be done. Further it was stated that equal addition to the turnover cannot be made only based on assumption unless addition materials and facts are available . Further, referring to the decision of this Court, in the case of Sri Ramu Furniture Co., ([2013] 57 VST 383), and S.V.Cycles Stores vs. Commercial Tax officer, [2011] 46 VST 565, it was submitted that when there is no material for making equal amount addition for probable suppression, the same is not justified.

41. The Assessing Officer, in the impugned assessment order, stated that the objection filed by the petitioner were perused carefully; the dealer is supposed to maintain true, correct and complete accounts as per Rule 6 of TNVAT Rules, 2007, but the dealer had not disclosed the sales of scrap on the monthly returns furnished, therefore, they have deliberately suppressed the taxable turnover and failed to pay tax on the taxable turnover of the scrap sales . Further it was stated that at the time of inspection only, they disclosed the sale of scrap and it is willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer warranting equal time addition for probable suppression and omission. Therefore, the objection by the dealer was overruled.

42. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Oil Mills (supra) and the decisions in the cases of Sri Ramu Furniture and S.V.Cycles Stores (supra), the equal time addition are liable to be set aside; further, assessing officer acted arbitrarily and abused his jurisdiction by not even attempting to distinguish or deal with the decisions of this Court which were cited before the assessing officer. Relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Vs. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 (SC) 1892], it is submitted that law declared by this Court is binding on the assessing authority and he cannot ignore decisions, therefore, the assessment orders are in violation of principles of judicial discipline laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 443. Further, it is submitted that even assuming that there was willful nondisclosure, that by itself not sufficient ground to make equal addition, more so, even prior to audit by the Dept, when the petitioner were preparing for audit, scrap sales came to notice and rectified the inadvertent mistake and paid tax as well as interest. Further it is submitted that it is not a case of willful non-disclosure but the petitioner had suo motu disclosed the same to the audit team, paid tax and interest thereon even before completion of audit. By relying on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu VS. S.M.Baba Sahib [(1979) Vol 44 STC 299], it is submitted that mere use of the expression "suppression" is not enough and it is not possible to say merely from the fact that there has been a reassessement on the escaped turnover on the basis of best judgment and therefore, there has been a willful nondisclosure on the assessable turnover. That there must be something to indicate that the turnover did in fact exist and that the assessee had willfully not disclosed that assessable turnover.

43. The learned Special Government Pleader, while seeking to sustain the equal addition, submitted that the dealer is supposed to maintain true accounts as per the Rules, they have not disclosed the same in their monthly returns, and only at the time of inspection, they disclosed and but for the inspection, the same would have gone unnoticed and therefore, the assessing officer was justified in making an order of equal addition. Further, it is submitted that the conduct of the dealer is relevant and when suppression was detected, there is justification for equal addition and the quantum of addition cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Further it is submitted that the omission having been admitted, the assessing officer was right in making equal addition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax [(2014) 70 VST page 1 (SC)], and the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.B.& Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 50 VST 234(Mad)], and the decision of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court, in the case of V.Aboobacker Vs. State of Kerala [(2010) 27 VST 308 (Ker.) (FB)].

44. In Jayalakshmi Oil Mills (supra), the Division Bench of this Court pointed out that when there is no basis for equal addition for probable omission, the same is unwarranted as it is only based on estimate that too probable suppression, it is only a guess work and no material for making equal amount for probable suppression and accordingly, deleted the equal addition for probable omission. Similar view was taken in the case of Sri Ramu Furniture Company (supra), wherein, the Division Bench pointed out the fact that in the subsequent year there was an inspection, which revealed suppression, by itself would not be a good ground to sustain the equal addition for the earlier assessment year. In S.V.Cycles Stores (supra), the Division Bench pointed out that addition under the head "equal addition" for probable omission, does not follow as an automatic, concomitant assessment on actual suppression; merely because the assessee's explanation as regards the subsequent accounting of the unaccounted purchase had been rejected by the officer, that by itself, would not justify the equal time addition towards probable suppression. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of S.M.BABA SAHIB (supra), while considering the correctness of the penalty imposed under Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act, pointed out that a wilful non disclosure of assessable turnover is a necessary ingredient to make out a case of invoking sub-section (2) of section 16 of the TNGST Act, viz., a deliberate intention to suppress an assessable turnover which should, in fact, have existed. It was further held that it is not possible to say, merely from the fact that there has been a re-assessment of escaped turnover on the basis of best judgement, that there has been a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover and there must be something to indicate that the turnover did in fact exist and the assessee had wilfully not disclosed that assessable turnover.

45. Thus, the legal principle that could be culled out from the above decisions is that equal addition being a guess work, based on an estimate, unless there is material, equal addition is not warranted; Stocks not supported by purchase bills cannot be a ground for equal addition. Rejection of assessee's explanation as regards unaccounted purchases which were subsequently accounted for would not justify equal time addition. The assessing officer did not deal with the effect of the three decisions referred above except for quoting the dealer's objection, which referred to these three decisions. Undoubtedly, the decisions were binding on the assessing officer as they are decisions of this Court, which is the jurisdictional court over the respondent. The assessing officer did not make any endeavour to deal with or distinguish those decisions considering the fact. The only ground for equal addition is by stating that the dealer failed to disclose the sale of scrap in their returns and it came to light and it was and at the time of inspection only they have disclosed. Applying the legal principles enunciated in the above referred decision to the facts before us, this Court is of the considered view that the reason assigned by the assessing officer does not warrant equal addition.

46. Further the facts placed clearly demonstrates that the dealer even prior to the audit by the officials of the department, is said to have detected the mistake which according to them was an inadvertent clerical mistake, paid tax and interest even prior to the conclusion of the audit by the officials. This, in my view, would be a relevant factor, and should have weighed in mind by the assessing officer while deciding the question as to whether the conduct of the petitioner warranted equal addition. Unfortunately, the assessing officer did not venture to examine the relevant issue and misdirected himself.

47. In case of Naturhu Ram Ramesh Kumar (supra), referred by the Revenue, a dealer registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sweets, namkeens and other eatables, had not shown his income correctly, despite opportunity having been granted to the dealer, to explain the books of accounts, wherein, substantial discrepancy was found between the receipts shown in the books of accounts and the gross receipts, this appeared to be a common feature for all the assessment years. While considering the facts of the said case, the Honble Supreme Court pointed out that the assessing officer did not jump to a conclusion without any rhyme or reason, the dealer, did not give sufficient explanation for the gross discrepancies in the accounts; therefore, the assessing officer had come to the conclusion that possible sale was much higher and conclusion was supported by sound reasons. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts and it is not the case of the Department that the petitioner was unable to explain the discrepancy nor there is any finding that the explanation offered was unacceptable or inadequate. In the case of A.B.& Sons(cited supra), the Division Bench confirmed the equal addition as assessee has not filed any documents to prove the purchases then accounted for. On facts the decision does not support the case of the Revenue in any manner.

48. As noticed above the assessing Officer, stated that at the time of audit, the omission was disclosed. However, the assessing officer has failed to advert to the specific stand of the petitioner that the discrepancy was noticed prior to the audit by the Dept and they suo motu disclosed the same to the audit and during the course of the audit, they had paid the entire tax along with interest. This in my view a very relevant factor, which should have weighed in the minds of the assessing officer, that on the date when the audit completed the inspection, the entire tax liability along with interest have been paid. Therefore the Senior counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the petitioner is being taxed twice. The equal addition being in the nature of penalty, it does not automatically follow that in every case of non-disclosure, equal addition is warranted. This is precisely a view taken by the three Division Benches of this Court cited supra. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no justification for equal addition. Therefore, the equal addition made by the assessing officer is deleted.

49. The next issue is with regard to imposition of tax on capital assets, which according to the petitioner was exported and not taxable. This issue arises for five assessment years from 2007-08 to 2011-12.

50. In the pre-assessment notice, it was stated that on verification of the fixed asset schedule annexed in the balance sheet, it was noticed that the petitioner have sold several fixed assets which attract tax liability. The petitioner was requested to furnish the corresponding sales vouchers which are said to have not been furnished and data was culled out from their audited balance sheet and stated that the petitioner has manufacturing plant only at Chennai , all the plant and machinery and goods regarding Tamil Nadu manufacturing unit only therefore, they are liable to pay tax on the disposal of their assets. Further the sale of fixed assets were not reported in the monthly returns. The petitioner, in their objections stated that the gross value of asset was adopted without giving allowance for depreciation and figures available in the balance sheet relates to all-India figures and that the company has operation in 22 States and sales effected in different States are reported to the Department and as far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, they stated that they have exported the assets to the foreign country which is zero rate and not to be taxed.

51. The assessing officer, rejected the contention stating that the petitioner were unable to produce State-wise break up at the time of audit, failed to furnish the actual sale value of the assets despite opportunity and failed to produce documents and details. By referring to Section 17 of the Act, it was stated that the burden of proof lies on the dealer. Further the contention of the dealer that it is zero rated sale was rejected as no documentary evidence was produced. In the assessment order, the assessing officer refers to the additional written submissions given by the dealer dated 16.4.2014, along with copy of financial statement 2007-08 and copies of export documents relating to sale of fixed assets. On perusal of the details furnished, the assessing officer stated that the dealer had not disclosed the sale of assets in their monthly return filed under TNVAT Act and they have not disclosed the sale of assets said to be reported in CST returns and the export sale has not been disclosed. Therefore, the objection of the dealer was overruled.

52. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the imposition of tax on export sale is blatant violation of Art.286(1)(b) of the Constitution which is expressly reflected in Section 18 of the TNVAT Act which provides that export sale as specified under Section 5 (1) or (3) of the CST Act shall be zero rated sale for the purpose of the TNVAT Act. Further it is submitted that the figure of sale of fixed assets were taken from fixed asset schedule annexed to the balance sheet and tax has been levied thereon treating it as local sale stating that the assessee has not disclosed in the returns. The petitioner, is said to have clarified to the audit team that proceeds from the sale of fixed assets were not taxable to VAT /CST as the assets have been exported out of India. Further, it is stated that it is brought to the knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner has operation in 22 other States and they were all-India figures and they provided the break up details; despite the same, the assessing officer erroneously observed that the petitioner was unable to present State-wise break up and corresponding sales voucher when the petitioner's case was that the assets were exported out of India and there can be no sales vouchers. Therefore, it is submitted that an export sale cannot be stated to be a local sale.

53. Learned Special Government Pleader stated that assessment should be based on records and it has to be established and it is not for the assessee / dealer to merely state in its returns. When the assesee was bound to produce the evidence, having failed to produce the same, inspite of demand, the order of assessment is perfectly valid and in any event, these being factual issues, cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition.

54. After hearing the submission on either side and on perusing the observations made in the assessment order to treat the transaction, which the dealer claimed to be export sales as local sales, is on the ground of non-furnishing of documents or inadequacy of documents produced. The consistent case of the petitioner is that the sales effected were export sales, zero rated under TNVAT and not taxable under VAT / CST. They claimed to have explained to the audit officials regarding the nature of business and the business operations, which they have in India. The dealer appeared for personal hearing and filed the written submissions on 25.03.2014. Apart from that, they have filed additional written submission on 17.4.2014 along with the copy of financial statement and copies of export document which according to them relates to sale of fixed assets.

55. In the impugned assessment order, though the assessing officer, while detailing the value of assets sold, has failed to advert into the effect of the export documents produced by the petitioner. This should have been examined by the assessing officer to test the correctness of the stand taken by the dealer that they were export sales, zero rated and not liable to tax. Non-furnishing of state-wise break up details to the audit officials is of non-consequence why finalising the assessment. The assessing authority being a quasi-judicial authority should adjudicate the case independently with due application of mind. Therefore, to draw adverse inference on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose details to the audit team during inspection could hardly be a reasons to confirm the proposal in the pre-assessment notice. Thus, it is clear that the assessing authority abdicated his power and was purely guided by the opinion of the inspecting team, which obliviously were officers superior in rank to the assessing officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should redo the assessment with regards to the tax on sale of assets as the documents produced by the dealer have not been examined by the assessing officer. As such, the consideration is not manifest in the assessment order. The dealer is entitled to reasonable opportunity to produce all records in support of their claim. Therefore, the tax levied on the sale of assets is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration of the assessing officer after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner/dealer.

56. The next issue relates to the non payment of tax on the sale of asset to M/s.NSNPL. This issues arises in the assessment for the year 2007-08. In the pre-revision notice, it was stated that the assessee have made sale of plant and machinery and stock inventory to NSNPL and such sale has not been reported. After referring to Explanation III to Section 2(41) of Act, the assessing officer stated that the petitioner has sold only a part of plant and machinery and stock inventory to NSNPL and not the business of Nokia as a whole to NSNPL, such sale is liable to tax and would not fall under Explanation III to Section 2(41) of the Act.

57. The petitioner, in their objection stated that it has transferred its entire network business to NSNPL as a going concern along with related assets and liabilities and it is a transfer of a business as a whole and does not attract sales tax. The petitioner explained that they had three divisions viz., the mobile phone division, network division, research and development unit and the petitioner had transferred all its assets and liabilities related to network division together with employees to NSNPL under business transfer agreement, and with effect from April 2007, the petitioner seized to carry on the said business and even now, they are not engaged in network business.

58. The assessing officer, reiterated the stand taken in the pre-revision notice, stating that the petitioners have sold only part of the plant and machinery and stock inventory to NSNPL. Further, it was observed that the petitioner declaring Nokia India Private Limited as a whole unit only availed various concessions from the Government and hence, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and confirmed the proposal to levy tax on the said transaction.

59. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the assessing officer failed to appreciate that the entire assets including the inventory of the network business was sold by the petitioner as a going concern and under the Income Tax Act, the transaction has been assessed as slump sale. Further, it is submitted that for the year 2012-13, the assessing officer accepted the transfer of the sales division as a transfer falling under Section 2(41) of the Act and there is no basis to reject the petitioner's contention. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. K.Behanan Thomas [1977 (39) STC 325 (Mad); Monsanto Chemical of India (P) Ltd Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 51 VST 278 and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lohia Machines Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., 1998 (110) STC 305 Allahabad.

60. The learned Special Government Pleader after referring to the observation made by the Assessing Officer submitted that the sale of the business was not as a whole business and only part of the plant machinery and stock inventory were sold and this also being a question of fact, cannot be agitated in a writ petition. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES v. DAT PATHE [1985 (59) STC) 374]. Further by referring to Section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act, it is submitted that there is morked difference in the manner in which the provision has been worded and the petitioner cannot take umbrage under the assessment under the Income Tax Act, to qualify the transaction under Explanation III in Section 2(41) of the Act.

61. Section 2(41) of the TNVAT Act defines turnover to mean the aggregate amount for which goods are brought or sold or delivered and supplied or otherwise disposed of in any of the ways referred to in Clauses (i) to (iii) by a dealer either directly or through another, on his own account or on account of others whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Explanation III to Section 2(41) states that any amount realised by a dealer by way of sale of his business as a whole, shall not be included in the turnover.

62. The petitioner seeks to bring the transfer of the network division to NSNPL as a sale of the business as a whole, and therefore not liable to tax. To substantiate their contention, they rely upon a business transfer agreement; that they had 3 divisions each being distinct; on and after 2007, they seize to carry on network business, and the transferee is a separate legal entity. They claim that under the Income Tax Act, the transfer was treated as a slump sale under Section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act.

63. The Assessing Officer did not examine the aspect as to whether the network division which is claimed by the petitioner to be a separate entity and that they have transferred all its assets and liabilities together with its employees to NSNPL, if such is the case, would it be transfer of a business as a whole. There was no material available with placed by the assessing officer to state that only part of the plant and machinery and stock inventory has been sold except to state that the petitioner declaring themselves as a single unit availed various concessions from the Government, therefore, their contentions that sold the business as a whole, cannot be accepted.

64.In the case of BEHANAN THOMAS (supra), the question which arose for consideration was whether the claim of the dealer that they have transferred the entire business as a whole and therefore exempt from tax was justified. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that when a person is carrying on business, sells the entire business or a branch of the business, he sells the same as a running business or as a going concern, the sale proceeds of such a transaction cannot be said to constitute turnover as defined in the Act, because the sale proceeds are not proceeds of sale of goods made in the course of business; the closure of a branch by sale thereof as a running concern to another person, apart from not constituting a sale of goods, cannot also be said to be a transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to such trade, commerce, adventure or concern mentioned under Section 2(d)(i) of the TNGST Act. Further, it was pointed out that the sale of a business, lock stock and barrel, is not incidental or ancillary to the carrying on of a business so as to be taxable under the Act. In the case of MONSANTO CHEMICALS (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench relying on the decision in the case of K.BEHANAN THOMAS (supra), held that when a person is carrying on business sells the entire business or a branch of the business, he sells the same as a running business or a going concern and the sale proceeds of such a transaction cannot constitute turnover as defined under the Act. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of DAT PATHE (supra).

65. Taking note of the legal principle, it is to be stated that the test applied by the assessing officer in the instant case to hold that the transfer is not a transfer of a business as a whole is incorrect. The assessing officer was to examine whether the network division was a separate business, a distinct entity and was it transferred lock stock and barrel in favour of NSNLP. Unless that issue has been addressed and a fact finding exercise made, the Assessing Officer could not have straightaway held that the transfer was only partial and not the whole business. Further more, the effect of the assessment under the Income Tax Act with respect to this very transaction treating the same as a slump sale should have also been gone into, as it cannot be stated that the facts which were taken note of during the assessment under the Income Tax Act is wholly irrelevant while considering whether the sale in the instant case was covered under Explanation III to 2(41) of the Act. Therefore, the finding assessing officer on this issue has been made by applying an improper test leading to an incorrect finding. The decision making process was incorrect. The correct questions were not addressed, the fact finding exercise was not even attempted to. Therefore, the finding with regard to the non payment of tax on sale of assets to NSNPL calls for interference and accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to assessing officer directing to make thorough enquiry into the contentions raised by the petitioner by applying proper test as indicated above and to see whether the transaction would fall within the scope Explanation III to Sub Section (2) of Section 41 of TNVAT Act.

66. The next issue is with regard to tax on disallowance of sales returns. This issue is common to four years viz., 2009-10 to 2012-13. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that sales returns have been disallowed and mentioned in the tabulated statement in the penultimate portion of the impugned assessment orders while determining the taxable turnover. On a perusal of the assessment order dated 27.6.2014, for the year 2009-10, in the body of the order, there is no discussion or finding as to why there has been disallowance of sales returns except an entry in Col.3 of the tabulated statement, stating sales return disallowed and the rate of tax imposed is 12.5%. Thus, such disallowance was without assessing reasons. Therefore, the imposition of tax on disallowance of sales return has to be necessarily set aside and remanded to the assessing officer to issue notice to the petitioner/dealer and after hearing their objection decide the issue afresh.

67. The next issue is with regard to the incorrect rate of tax adopted by the petitioner as regards the sale of accessories and spare parts of the mobile phones. This issue arises for two years 2011-12 and 2012-13. In the pre-revision notice, it was stated that the sale of goods viz., headsets, speakers, memory cards and wireless kit for mobile phones and other parts and accessories are taxable at 14.5% with effect from 12.07.2011, and on verification of sales invoice and other records, it was noticed that the petitioner have paid 5% instead of 14.5% for the accessories of mobile phone, therefore, they are liable to pay difference of tax. Petitioner in their objections submitted that they are effecting sale of headsets, speakers, memory cards and wireless kit found to be placed under item number 68 of Part B of the First Schedule which are "Information Technology Products" and they can be used in radio, T.V., MP3 player, computer etc and hence they are to termed as products under Information Technology Products and tax has to be charged at 5% only which was earlier 4%. Further, they have charged rate of tax applicable to cell phone for all the spares and accessories of cell phone i.e, at 14.5% (earlier 4%). The petitioner placed reliance on Section 3(2) of the Act to justify their stand. The assessing officer, rejected the contention and confirmed the proposal.

68. The assessing officer, while considering the objections filed, held that the products sold by the petitioner as accessories along with mobile phones does not come under the category of Information Technology products. Parts and accessories of cellular telephone (mobile phone) specifically finds place vide Entry 13-A(f) under Part C of the First Schedule of the TNVAT Act and they have to be taxed at 14.5% and the proviso to Section 3(2) of VAT Act is not applicable. The finding rendered by the assessing officer is perfectly justified, inasmuch as the headphones and accessories sold by the petitioner along with mobile phone falls under specific Entry 13-A(f) under Part C of the First Schedule and liable to tax at 14.5%. It is settled legal principle that a specific entry would prevail over a general entry. The products/goods such as headsets of mobile phones, memory card, wireless car kit for mobiles and components and accessories of mobile phones are therefore taxable at the rate of 14.5% and this cannot be classified as information technology products. The plea raised by the petitioner is not tenable and the finding rendered by the assessing officer with regard to parts and accessories of mobile phones were being made in specific Entry 13-A(f) of Part C of the First Schedule of the TNVAT Act is valid and proper and accordingly stands confirmed and the petitioner's contention is rejected.

69. This leaves us with the last issue with regard to imposition of penalty which is common to all the seven years. In the pre-revision notices, there were proposals to levy penalty under section 27(3) of the Act in respect of all the defects / omissions / suppressions pointed out. The petitioner in their objection submitted that section 27(3) could be invoked only when the dealer has escaped assessment due to willful nondisclosure of the assessable turnover and there must be evidence to indicate that there exists malafide intention for not disclosing at the time of assessment and the bonafides of the petitioner must be considered before alleging suppression. The assessee stated it has shown all the entries in the books of accounts and there is no willful suppression or want of bonafide on their part, there was no mala fide intention for the assessee for not disclosing any turnover and even in respect of the sales of scrap as soon it was noticed which was prior to the audit by the Department was disclosed to the audit officer, tax and interest was fully paid even prior to the conclusion of audit by the department. The assessing officer on considering the objection of the dealer with regard to proposal for penalty, has observed that the assessee not disclosed sales of scrap in the monthly returns; had not reported correct turnover in monthly returns; deliberately suppressed turnover and failed to pay tax on the taxable turnover of scrap sales and disclosed sale of scrap at the time of inspection which is willful non-disclosure, warranting levy of penalty. Thus, the imposition of penalty was on the alleged suppression of turn over of scrap sales, on which equal addition was also made.

70. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof or default and penalty will not be imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or acted in conscious disregard of his obligations. Penalty will not be imposed in cases of technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. The words "willful" and "suppression" signify cautious, deliberate, intentional withholding of information mala fide and intentional failure of information due to inadvertence. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decisions Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa reported in AIR 1970 SC 253; Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Collector Of Central Excise, reported in 1994 74 ELT 9 (SC); CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments reported in 1989 40 ELT 276 (SC); Padmini Products Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1989 43 ELT 195 SC; Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. CCE Bombay reported in 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC); Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 2005 188 ELT 149; In Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2005 (189) ELT 257; Inter Continental India reported in 2008 (226) ELT 161; In Continental Foundation JT Venture vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -I reported in 2007 216 ELT 177; UNIWORTH TEXTILE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR reported in 2013 288 ELT 161 (SC); and Cosmic Dye Chemical vs Collector Of Central Excise reported in (1995) 6 SCC 117.

71. Learned Special Government Pleader after elaborately referring to the factual situation submitted that the mistake was found out by the Department during the course of audit, but for the audit conducted in 2013, the non-disclosure of sale of scrap would not have come to light. That the disclosure should start from the filing of the return and the conduct of the petitioner/dealer in willfully suppressing the sales turnover in the returns warrants levy of penalty. The quantum of penalty is not a matter to be adjudicated in a writ petition. The claim of payment of tax and interest at the time of audit would not absolve or exonerate the dealer from their act of suppression and non-disclosure of full and correct turnover before the assessing authority. The levy of penalty is an offshoot of non-disclosure of the sale of scrap in the monthly returns.

72.Section 27(3) of the Act states that in making an assessment under clause (a) of sub section 3 of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act (as in the present case) the assessing authority may, if it is satisfied that the escape from assessment is due to willful non-disclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer, direct the dealer, to pay, in addition to the tax assessed under clause (a) of 27 (1) by way of penalty, which shall be either 50% or 100% or 150%, depending upon the parameters set down in clauses (a) to (c) in Section 27(3). In terms of the above provision, to levy penalty, the assessing officer should record its satisfaction that the escape from assessment is due to willful non-disclosure. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 253 (supra), while considering imposition of penalty on the assessee under the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, pointed out, an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not be ordinarily imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation and penalty will not be imposed unless it is lawful to do so. Where penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. In the instant case, except for observing that there was willful non disclosure on the part of the petitioner, and but for the audit, the matter would not have come to light, the assessing authority did not examine as to whether the conduct of the petitioner/dealer was willful. Further, the Assessing Officer has not assigned independent reasons as to the imposition of penalty on the entire demand, which essentially should have been done by the Assessing Officer.

73. It is not in dispute that the sale of scrap was not disclosed in the turnover. Non-disclosure does not automatically lead to levy of penalty. Statute contemplates levy of penalty in cases of willful non-disclosure. Therefore, the explanation given by the dealer for a proposal made by the assessing officer to levy penalty should be considered to examine as to whether their conduct was willful. In the instant case, the petitioner states that nondisclosure of scrap sales in the returns is an inadvertent clerical mistake. The petitioner would further state that this was ascertained by them while they were preparing for audit and this was much prior to the inspection done by the officials of the Department. They would further state that on noticing the inadvertent mistake, on their own volition, disclosed the same to the audit officials, when they commenced the audit inspection, paid full tax and interest even prior to the completion of the audit inspection. Therefore, they plead that the non-disclosure was not willful on the date when the audit team prepared their report, the tax and interest have been fully paid and there is no cause for levying penalty. However, the assessing officer did not examine this aspect and merely quoted the expression used in Section 27(3) viz., willful non-disclosure. Mere use of expression "willful" does not make an act or action willful or deliberate. It is a question of fact to be proved by the person who makes an allegation against another for having acted in a willfully negligent manner or deliberately acted with malafide with an intention not to comply the statutory provisions. This exercise was not done by the assessing Officer. Allegations of malafide are often more easily made than proved and the burden is on the person who alleges it. Further more, the payment of the tax and interest even prior to the completion of the audit inspection though may not be the sole reason to exonerate the petitioner but would be a mitigating factor while construing the conduct of the petitioner vis-a-vis the rigour of the expression "willfull" . The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Limited (2013) 9 SCC 753, pointed out the use of word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of the assessee by gauging its actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. Referring to the meaning of word "wilful' in Black's Law Dictionary which states "Wilful" to mean "Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass.....

"An act or omission is "willfully" done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done ........"

74.In the case of ABANLOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LTD., V. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2006 (6) SCC 482], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the proviso to section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, which could be invoked when any duty has not been levied or has been short levied by reason of collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or his agent or his employee. While considering the effect of said proviso, it was pointed out that so far as mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are qualified by the word 'wilful'. The word 'wilful' preceding the words 'mis-statement or suppression of facts' clearly spells out that there has to be an intention on the part of the assessee to evade the duty. Thus, the Assessing Officer was bound to consider whether the conduct of the dealer was wilful.

75. In the instant case, it is evident that the assessing officer has not brought out the wilfulness in the manner it has to be established. Further it has to be pointed out that circulars issued by the Commissioner under the erstwhile TNGST Act are saved in terms of Section 88(3)(i) of the TNVAT Act, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of TNVAT Act or the rules made thereunder until they are repealed or amended. The Commissioner, issued one such circular dated 25.08.1999 laying down guidelines for the assessing officer with regard to assessments, best judgments assessment, procedures etc. In Clause 16 therein, it is stated that additions to turnover reported cannot rest on subjective satisfaction of authority. The order must state reasons and the order shall be a speaking order so that the assessee, higher authorities and judicial forums may know the basis for the best judgment assessment. It is further stated that fair opportunity is to be given to the assessee and judicial consideration given to the representations, evidences and materials furnished by the assessee. The assessment should be based on relevant materials and on evidence available in the record and not on suspicions or surmises. The Assessing Officer should not disregard the materials in the records without valid reasons. Any guess work must be rational and reasonable. Capricious assessment without regard for available material is not permissible under law.

76. The Assessing officer should have borne in mind the guidelines issued in the circular which as on date is a statutory circular and deemed to be valid and binding on the assessing officer. Furthermore, the reasons assigned in this order wile deleting equal addition on the probable suppression of scrap sales would come to the aid of the petitioner to justify deletion of penalty. That apart there is no justification spelt out in the impugned assessment order to impose penalty on the entire tax demanded. For all the above reasons the penalty imposed is deleted.

77. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed as indicated below:-

(1) In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the writ petitions are maintainable as the impugned orders of assessment are vitiated on the ground of serious infirmities in the decision making process; failure to take into consideration relevant particulars and details, not having assigned reasons and based on irrelevant considerations and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2) As regards issue No.(ii), it is held that power under section 27(1)(a) of the Act is a power to revise an assessment, where the assessing officer is empowered, to assess escaped turnover and wrong availment of input tax credit giving wider power with extended period of limitation for reopening of assessment and hence power given under 27(1)(a) is quite distinct from the power conferred under Section 22(4) of the Act, which deals with deemed assessment and procedure to be followed by the assessing authority which is in paramateria of Section 12(2) of Madras Sales Tax Act 1959 and the power exercised by the Assessing Officer in the instant case is a re-assessment or re-opening of assessment in contra distinction with the power exercisable under section 22(4) of the Act. This issue is answered accordingly.

(3) For the reasons assigned, the equal addition on the probable omission and suppression of scrap sales is deleted.

(4) The assessments in respect of imposition of tax on capital assets is set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration after giving full opportunity including affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

(5) The tax imposed on the transfer of business to NSNPL is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer to redo the assessment under this head by making thorough enquiry into the contentions raised by the petitioner by applying proper test as indicated and to see whether the transaction would fall within the scope Explanation III to Section 2 (41) of TNVAT Act.

(6) The tax imposed as a consequence of disallowance of sales return is set aside on the ground that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner; no such clear proposal is made in the pre-revision notice and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Liberty is granted to the assessing officer to issue show cause to the petitioner and to proceed in accordance with law.

(7) The finding rendered by the assessing officer in the assessment orders for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 with regard to the rate of tax to be adopted on parts and accessories is perfectly legal and valid and the finding of the assessing officer is confirmed.

(8) For the reasons assigned, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is liable to be deleted and accordingly, deleted.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

09.12.2014 rpa/nvsri/pbn Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To

1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-iv Large Tax Payers Union V Floor, Dugar Towers, No.34, Marshall Road, Egmore Chennai 8.

2.State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary Department of Commercial Taxes Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

3.Joint Commissioner (Appeals) PAPJM Building, Greams Road Chennai 600006.

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

rpa/nvsri/pbn Pre-delivery O r d e r in W.P. Nos.22066 to 22072 of 2014 09.12.2014

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court