M/S.Gowri Dyeing Factory v. The Assistant Commissioner

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 11.8.2016 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.28148 of 2016 & WMP.Nos.24281 & 24282 of 2016 M/s.Gowri Dyeing Factory rep.by its Proprietor M.Ramu

...Petitioner

Vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bhavani Assessment Circle, Bhavani, Erode District.

...Respondent

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN No.33942942409/2010-11 dated 4.8.2015 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Ramanathan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, AGP

ORDER

Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment dated 4.8.2015 for the year 2010-11 under the State Act.

3. The ground, on which, the impugned order is challenged, is by contending that no pre-revision notice was received by the petitioner, though, in the impugned order, it is stated that the dealers were served with a notice, they did not file objections. It is seen that the impugned order is dated 4.8.2015 and there is a reference to a notice dated 6.4.2015. However, there is some overwriting in the date and it is not clear as to the correct date, on which, the notice was issued and the correct date, on which, the assessment order was passed.

4. Be that as it may, the respondent has not given effect to the impugned order for all these years. It is stated that the petitioner represented to the respondent stating that they have not received the preassessment notice and therefore, the matter was kept in cold storage. Now, there is a threat of recovery, which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court.

5. Though, in the impugned order, it is stated that the notice was duly served on the petitioner, there is no specific reference as to on what date, the notice was served. In my view, this should also be stated in the impugned order so as to avoid any false plea raised by the dealers. In any event, the impugned order having not been given effect to for two years, this Court is of the view that the assessment should be redone after granting an opportunity to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

petitioner to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit their objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the above WMPs are closed. 11.8.2016 Internet : Yes To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bhavani Assessment Circle, Bhavani, Erode District.

RS

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS WP.No.28148 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.24281 & 24282 of 11.8.2016