New Rose Bombay Dyeing, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 22.9.2016 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.32195 of 2016 & WMP.No.27926 of 2016 New Rose Bombay Dyeing rep.

by its Proprietor H.Abu Thahir

...Petitioner

Vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Saibaba Colony Circle, Coimbatore-18.

...Respondent

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in TIN 3378 2061 931/2014-15 dated 12.8.2016 and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Inbarajan For Respondent :

Mr.K.Venkatesh, GA(Taxes)

ORDER

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 provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and is engaged in buying and selling ready made garments and exempted goods falling under the Fourth Schedule to the said Act. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order of assessment under the provisions of the said Act for the year 2014-15.

3. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner, the first ground of challenge is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the documents produced by the petitioner, pursuant to the prerevision notice, were not considered in a proper perspective.

4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent confirmed the proposal in the pre-revision notice dated 12.7.2016 on the ground that the objections have not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

filed. But, the fact remains that the petitioner appeared in person and produced documents and that the documents having been taken on file in the office of the respondent, they could have been discussed and an opportunity of personal hearing could have been granted.

5. Further, the petitioner's case is that there is no dispute with regard to the nature of goods sold by them and the dispute is as to whether the Commodity Code referred as 605 creates liability under the said Act, when, on the very same omission of the said commodity code, it was inserted under S.No.77A of Part B of Fourth Schedule to the Act and therefore, the respondent failed to appreciate the classification of the goods by Act 30 of 2011 before treating the sales of exempted goods as taxable goods. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration and to redo the assessment in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to file their objections within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after which, an opportunity of personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner and the assessment shall be redone in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the above WMP is closed.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Saibaba Colony Circle, Coimbatore-18.

+1 cc to Mr.N.Inbarajan Advocate sr 54078 +1 cc to the special government Pleader(Taxes) sr 54141 WP.No.32195 of 2016& WMP.No.27926 of 2016 aa22/10/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/