M/S.Monika Metals v. The Assistant Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 22.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.10338 & 10339 of 2014 & MP Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 1 M/S.MONIKA METALS REP BY ITS PROPRIETRIX CHENNAI 79.

.. Petitioner in both W.Ps.

Vs 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)(FAC) VALLALAR NAGAR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE 116 ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET CHENNAI 1.

.. Respondent in both W.Ps.

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN/33221161206/2011-12 & TIN/33221161206/2012-13 and quash the impugned order dt 28.2.2014 as passed contrary to the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondent to provide the copies of the details/documents requested by the petitioner in its objections dt 22.1.2014, 24.1.2014 and 19.2.2014 and thereafter to pass a fresh assessment order following the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharastra Vs Suresh Trading Company reported in 109 STC 439, followed by the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of M/s.

Jinsasan Distributors Vs Commercial Tax Officer (CT) Chintaripet Asst Circle reported in 59 VST 256. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.Kanmani Annamalai Addl. Government Pleader C O M M ON O R D E R Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2.The petitioner is a dealer in Ferrous and non-ferrous metals, Stainless steel, copper, brass, aluminium sheets and registered on the file of the respondent under the provisions of

the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [TN VAT Act]. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the assessment dated 28.02.2014, for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the objections filed by the petitioner were not properly considered in one case and in the other case, the objection is said to have not been received.

3.The respondent issued notices to the petitioner on several dates proposing to revise the assessments. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had also submitted several objections, as could be seen from the impugned assessment orders, wherein the Assessing Officer has referred to the petitioner's objections. The petitioner has filed objections on 24.01.2013, 19.03.2013, 11.06.203, 13.01.2014, 20.01.2014, 22.01.2014, 19.02.2.14 for the pre-revision notices for the assessment year 2011-12. With regard to the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner has submitted objections, as mentioned in the impugned assessment order on 27.09.2012, 19.03.2013, 27.03.2013, 22.01.2014 and 19.02.2014. 4.The petitioner's case is that so far as the assessment for the year 2011-12, the same has been made by referring to the objection dated 19.02.2014.

The objection runs to 32 pages. Undoubtedly, the objection is a very detailed objection and the petitioner has referred to the records which they have produced at the time of personal hearing on 11.06.2013. Though the petitioner has dealt with each of the points in separate paragraphs, it may not be necessary to refer to all the details and suffice to look into few of the averments.

5.The petitioner had stated that one of their sellers M/s Manoj Metal, is a registered dealer under the respondent and they have filed monthly returns, wherein in annexure II, they have reported the sales and requested the respondent to verify the records available in their office. So far as Salem Steel and Alloy is concerned, they are the registered dealer under the Moor Market Assessment Circle.

6.The learned counsel points out that so far as the Salem Steel and Alloy is concerned, they have succeeded before the First Appellate Authority and the Department has filed an Appeal before the Tribunal, in which notice has been issued to the Salem Steel and Alloy. Therefore, it is submitted that there can be no doubt that their dealers are registered dealers. Similarly, other issues have been pointed out in the objection. Unfortunately, while finalising the assessment for 2011-12, the respondent merely stated that though transport documents were furnished, certain particulars are not furnished. On the other issue, it was stated that, on further verification of the monthly returns, it was found that Annexure-I of the dealer differ from annexure-II of the seller. In my view, the respondent has finalised the assessment in an arbitrary manner and there is no discussion of any of the points raised by the petitioner. That apart, there is no reason as to why

the respondent disbelieved the stand of the petitioner in their objections.

7.In so far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the same has been finallised, alleging that the petitioner has not submitted their objections. There is no discussion and there is no reason given to confirm the proposal in the notice. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the objection was given on 24.06.2014, which has been acknowledged by the Commercial Tax Officer, in their 'Letter Delivery Book' . If that be so, the authority could not have finalised the assessment on the ground that the petitioner did not file their objections, when the very same assessment order records that the petitioner had earlier filed objections on 27.09.2012, 22.01.2014 and 19.02.2014. Hence, when the assessment proceedings are actively proceeding and the matter has been considered on several issues, the Assessing Officer, could have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to place all the materials. However, such an exercise was not done by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference.

9.Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and consider the objections as well as the documents that have been produced by the petitioner, make due verification of the details which the petitioner has stated in the objections and thereafter proceed to complete the assessment by passing a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VII ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)(FAC) VALLALAR NAGAR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE 116 ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET CHENNAI 1.

+1 cc to Mr.P.Rajkumar, advocate,sr.41721 (9/9) +1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader,sr.41915.

gj(co) krd 4/8 W.P.Nos.10338 & 10339 of 2014