IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.28606 of 2007
Crompton Greaves Limited
represented by its Senior Finance Manager G.Vijayakumar
No.3
Dr.MGR Salai
Chennai 600 034 ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.)
Fast Track Assessment Circle III
Greams Road
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeals)
III Floor
Wavoo Complex
No.191
N.S.C. Bose Road
Chennai 600 001. ..Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files
of the second respondent herein in A.P.No.57 of 2005, dated
22.3.2006, and quash the same while directing the second
respondent to re-dispose the appeal in A.P.No.57 of 2005.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Inbarajan
For respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader (Tax)
O R D E R
1. Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader
(Tax), takes notice for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing
on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final
disposal.
3. Heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner as well as Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Special
Government Pleader (Tax), for the respondents.
4. It is submitted by the petitioners that they are
executing works contracts for various private and public
sector undertakings. The petitioners are also registered
dealers on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (C.T),
Fast Track Assessment Circle, Chennai.
5. It is also submitted that their assessment for the
year CST/2001-02, was completed by the first respondent, on
27.6.2005. During the relevant assessment year, they had
supplied engineering goods to Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited. Under the Supply Agreement, dated 24.4.2000,
the petitioner had effected supplies by two modes, namely,
(i) direct supplies from their factory situated at Ambad,
Nasik, kanjur – Mumbai – Maharashtra State, and (ii) sales
in transit effected by them on supplies made by vendors.
6. It is further submitted that for all the direct
supplies made by the petitioners, they have remitted the
appropriate Central Sales Tax in the despatching State with
the Assessing Officer, Mumbai/Nasik Assessment Circle.
Similarly, the vendors have also remitted the appropriate
Central Sales Tax in their states with regard to the sale in
transit effected by the petitioners. The vendors are also
registered dealers in various states.
7. It is further stated that the petitioners had made a
claim, under Section 6(2)(b) of The Central Sales Tax Act,
1956, in respect of the sale in transit effected by them.
The petitioners are required to issue Form-C declarations to
the vendor and obtain E-1 declaration forms from the vendors
and the said forms are to be submitted to the Assessing
Authority, the first respondent herein. Accordingly, the
petitioners had claimed exemption on the turnover of
Rs.8,07,58,834/- in the course of their original assessment,
dated 27.6.2005. The first respondent had granted the
exemption on the turnover of Rs.6,31,56,527/-. The exemption
was granted in page seven of the original assessment order,
dated 27.6.2005. Exemption was not granted on the balance
turnover on the ground of non-submission of forms.
8. Against the assessment order of the first
respondent, dated 27.6.2005, the petitioners had filed a
first appeal before the appellate authority, the second
respondent herein. The hearing of the appeal was conducted,
on 15.3.2006. The petitioners had appeared before the
appellate authority through their Chartered Accountant,
Mr.V.Narendran, and had submitted that the declaration forms
could not be obtained on the balance turnover. However, the
hearing of the appeal was concluded on the same day.
Thereafter, by an order, in Ap.No.57 of 2005, dated
22.3.2006, the second respondent had, for the first time,
stated that the petitioner had erroneously claimed the
exemption on the entire turnover of Rs.8,07,58,834/-.
9. The second respondent had proceeded to discuss the
question of eligibility of the petitioners even on the
turnover, which was not disputed before him in appeal.
Thus, the second respondent had decided the issue without a
show cause notice and without giving an opportunity to the
petitioners stating that the sale in transit was not
allowable on the entire turnover of Rs.8,07,58,834/-, based
on the various reasons stated therein. Even though the
second respondent, in his appeal order, dated 22.3.2006, had
stated that he was remitting the matter back to the
Assessing Authority for a fresh assessment, the conclusions
drawn by the second respondent against the petitioners,
between pages 6 and 9 of his appellate order, without a show
cause notice or opportunity being given to the petitioners,
is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the impugned appeal order, dated 22.3.2006, is
illegal and invalid and liable to be set aside.
10. The only contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that the Appellate
Authority had made certain remarks, with regard to the
enhanced tax payable by the petitioner, without giving an
opportunity to the petitioners.
11. Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader,
(Tax) appearing for the respondents, has not refuted the
claims made by the petitioners.
12. In such circumstances, the impugned appellate
order, dated 22.3.2006, passed by the second respondent in
Ap.No.57 of 2005, is set aside, and the second respondent is
directed to decide the Appeal in Ap.No.57 of 2005, on merits
and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders
thereon, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
lan
To:
1. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.)
Fast Track Assessment Circle III
Greams Road
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeals)
III Floor
Wavoo Complex
No.191
N.S.C. Bose Road
Chennai 600 001.