Madras High Court
Sri Sai Impex vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)(Fac) on 9 October, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.10.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.3311 and 3312 of 2013 Sri Sai Impex Shop No.13, Bharath Matha Complex, Pulikuthi Main Road, Guagai, Salem-6. Rep. by its Partner Mr.R.Murugan .. Petitioner in both Writ Petitions -vs- The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC) Annathanapatty Circle, Salem. ... Respondent in both Writ Petitions Prayer in W.P.No.3311/2013: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the respondent bearing No. Tin. 33812764534/10-11 dated 24.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011, quash the same and direct the respondent to re-adjudicate the matter after giving fair and reasonable opportunity after furnishing details. Prayer in W.P.No.3312/2013: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the respondent bearing No. Tin. 33812764534/11-12 dated 24.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, quash the same and direct the respondent to re-adjudicate the matter after giving fair and reasonable opportunity after furnishing details. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Abdul Nazeer For Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu Addl. Govt. Pleader ***** C O M M O N O R D E R
By consent of the learned counsel on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is M/s.Sri Sai Impex and the challenge in both the writ petitions is as to the orders passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short the TNVAT Act, 2006).
3. The primary ground on which the impugned proceedings have been questioned is on the ground that the impugned proceedings have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not afforded adequate, fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth its case.
4. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that the petitioner received revision notice, wherein there was a proposal to levy tax on the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not respond to the said notice and it is for the first time before this Court that the petitioner would state that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity.
5. The respondent in their counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner should prove with necessary documentary evidence that their sellers are perfect and they have filed returns with remittance of taxes. Further, the respondent would state that there are evidences to show that the petitioner had effected purchases from the dealers, whose registration were cancelled and in such circumstances, onus is on the petitioner to produce necessary records before the Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, it contemplates reasonable opportunity, which was also provided to them and the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity.
6. It may be true that the petitioner did not respond to the revision notice issued. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has proposed to confirm the proposal in the revision notice. Since the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the Assessing Officer was justified in passing the orders of assessment.
7. However, taking note of the facts that the dealer would now state that they have not been informed as to when onwards registration certificates of the Traders, from whom goods were purchased, were cancelled; that the specific details have not been furnished; that according to the petitioner, their traders are genuine traders and not involved in bogus business and that they are also allotted TIN number, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to produce documents before the authority to establish its contentions.
8. In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the petitioner in both the writ petitions is directed to submit their objections / reply to the revision notice dated 10.09.2012 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent shall afford the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to enable them to produce necessary records and documents and pass reasoned orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the personal hearing.
9. Both these writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.10.2014 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar To The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC) Annathanapatty Circle, Salem.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ar W.P.Nos.3311 and 3312 of 2013 09.10.2014