S.Rajamani Nadar v. The Secretary

2024:MHC:3268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 02.09.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP.No.17575 of 2008 and MP.No.2 of 2008 S.Rajamani Nadar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Coimbatore.

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Oppanakara Street Circle, Coimbatore.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent - Appellate Tribunal passed in CTSA No. 341/2002 dated 28.02.2007 pertaining to the assessment year 1987-88, quash the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Law.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, (for R2) Government Advocate R1 - Tribunal

O R D E R

Page No.1/5

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.) Both, Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would bring to our notice an order passed by this Court in WP.Nos.17751 to 17755 of 2008 allowing the writ petition filed by this petitioner. In fact, the order of the Tribunal assailed in WP.Nos.17751 to 17755 of 2008 and the present writ petition is a common order dated 28.02.2007. 2.The operative portion of the order is as follows:- '11. But, unfortunately, the Tribunal held that even the summoning of the dealers from Andhra Pradesh was sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice irrespective of whether they appear or not.

The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal in this regard is found in para 12 which we extract as follows:- "12. On the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the Assessing Authority had issued notice to the Andhra Pradesh dealers for crossexamination of the Andhra Pradesh dealers. But, they had not responded to the notice or the summons by presenting themselves with the relevant account but rebutted by saying that the Hon'ble High Court had not directed the Andhra Pradesh dealers to appear before the Enforcement Wing Officers for cross-examination and moreover the Enforcement Wing Officers have no jurisdiction to summon those dealers.

As the other State dealers had not come forward for cross-examination as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court to grant opportunity to the dealer, the dealers having come forward for making of assessment, the assessment had been completed by the Enforcement Wing Officers. Here, the Enforcement Wing Officers have clearly complied with the directions of the Page No.

Hon'ble High Court and they have given opportunity and they have summoned the Andhra Pradesh dealers for cross-examination by the dealers at this end. But the Andhra Pradesh dealers had not come forward citing the jurisdictional point. So, the question of negation of natural justice does not arise. But, at the same time the duty that was cast on the Assessing Officer namely, the Enforcement Wing Officers had been complied with. Whether the dealer had complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court has to be seen. The Hon'ble High Court did not leave with the direction to the Assessing Authority to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the Andhra Pradesh dealers but had also given a direction to the dealer to cooperate with the Department."

12. We are afraid that the above view is completely contrary to law. The assessee cannot be made to defend an allegation made on the basis of the extracts of certain records taken by the Enforcement Wing Officers without the basic records being produced. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was compliance with the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.'

3.In light of the identity in issues, the ratio of the above order is applicable to the present matter as well and this writ petition is hence allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. (A.S.M.,J) (G.A.M.,J) 02.09.2024 Index: Yes/No mpl To 1.The Secretary Page No.3/5

Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Coimbatore.

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Oppanakara Street Circle, Coimbatore.

Page No.4/5

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

mpl WP.No.17575 of 2008 and MP.No.1 of 2008 02.09.2024 Page No.5/5