BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/09/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD)No.11667 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 Tvl. Crystal Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.R.Godwin, Udayamarthandam, Kuttiparavilai, Melmidalam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned assessment order passed by the second respondent in Assessment Number TNGST 6182347 relates to the year 2005-06, dated 17.03.2010, and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to afford an opportunity and personal hearing to the petitioner firm and thereafter to pass fresh assessment order. !For petitioner ... M/s.S.Veerasamy ^For respondents ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy Special Government Pleader. :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned assessment
order passed by the second respondent, in Assessment Number TNGST 6182347
relating to the year 2005-06, dated 17.03.2010, and quash the same and
consequently direct the second respondent to afford an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner firm and thereafter, to pass a fresh assessment order.
2. Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice
for the respondents.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is that the final assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06
had been passed, by the second respondent, without giving an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that the order
passed by the second respondent, on 17.03.2010, had been received by the
petitioner, on 24.04.2010.
4. However, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted, on instructions, that a
notice had been sent to the petitioner, by the second respondent, on 19.09.2007
relating to the provisional assessment for the assessment year 2005-2006. The
petitioner had sent a reply to the said notice, on 05.03.2007, requesting the
second respondent to grant one month time to submit a detailed reply. Even
though sufficient time had been granted, the petitioner had not submitted the
detailed reply. Thereafter, a pre-assessment notice has been sent on
26.10.2007. On 31.12.2007, a revised pre-assessment notice had also been sent.
Only thereafter, a final order had been passed by the second respondent, on
17.03.2010, which had been received by the petitioner, on 24.04.2010.
5. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or
reason to grant the relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition and to
accept the claim of the petitioner that sufficient opportunity had not been
given to the petitioner, before the impugned order had been passed, by the
second respondent. It is also seen that an appeal remedy is available to the
petitioner under Section 31-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
srm
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Appellate Authority,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Kuzhithurai,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.