M/S. A.J & Company, Rep. By v. The Assistant Audit Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.04.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.NO.12985 OF 2016 AND WMP NOS.11342 AND 11446 OF 2016 M/s. A.J. & Company Rep. By its Partner B.A.Mohamed Naina Having its office at No.2/1, Avadi Main Road, Pammadukulam, Red Hills, Chennai - 600 052.

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Assistant Audit Officer AP4/ Chennai North Region Audit Branch TANGEDCO Chennai.

2.The Assistant Engineer O&M / Red Hills - I CEDC / West / TNEB Chennai - 600 052.

..

Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in Audit Slip No.31 in AAO/AP4/Chennai North District / LT Revenue 4 / 13-3/14 dated 21.12.2015 on the file of the first respondent and the consequential order in Lr.No.AE/O&M/REDHILLS-I/I.A/F/D 60 dated 11.02.2016 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same as being arbitrary and illegal.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondents :

Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar

O R D E R

Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The petitioner, which is a Garment Industry, has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order, by which, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,38,837/- alleging the same to be BOAB shortfall for the period from September 2007 to November 2010. Along with this demand, another communication has been enclosed stating that the service connection should be built under Tariff V.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned demand, apart from being arbitrary and unreasonable, is barred by limitation. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner company is only carrying on manufacturing activities, as it is engaged in the manufacturing / processing readymade garments and erroneously, in the audit slip, the first respondent has come to the conclusion that the service has been utilised for "garment stitching" and not "for manufacturing". Thirdly, it is contended that Tariff - V would have no application, since the said Tariff will be applicable only for the flats and tenaments utilised for commercial and other purposes, etc.

5.In any event, the petitioner could not have been directed to pay the amount, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, that too, when the demand is for a period from 2007 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in raising a plea of limitation and if that has been raised, then the respondents have to pass a speaking order, as to how they are justified in demanding same. That apart, the question is as to whether the petitioner is not a manufacturing industry is also to be examined and without examining the nature of activity, a conclusion cannot be arrived at by the respondents. Furthermore, they have to state as to how Tariff-V would stand attracted. All these aspects could be decided unless and until the petitioner is afforded with an opportunity to place records and written submissions.

Therefore, the impugned demand cannot be implemented as of now. However, instead of quashing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should raise all the objections before the authority. 6.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned notice, as show cause notice, and submit objections in writing, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to annexe documents, in support of their stand.

opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, examine all the facts and decide all the issues and while doing so, the first respondent shall decide the question of limitation, as first among the several issues. The above direction shall be complied with by the first respondent, within a period of three months from the date of which, the objection is raised. 7.The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar TK To 1.The Assistant Audit Officer AP4/ Chennai North Region Audit Branch TANGEDCO Chennai.

2.The Assistant Engineer O&M / Red Hills - I CEDC / West / TNEB Chennai - 600 052.

+1cc to M/s.R. Karthikeyan, Advocate, S.R.No.21626 +1cc to Mr.P.R. Dhilipkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.21902 CTK(CO) EU(26/04/2016) W.P.NO.12985 OF 2016