BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.8930 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 Sree Prakash Fire Works Factory represented by its Proprietor M.Ramamoorthy . . . Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. . . . Respondent PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Assessment order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in CST 502019/03-04 dated 29.04.2008 received by the petitioner on 09.05.2008 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to pass fresh order of assessment by granting an opportunity to produce the books of accounts before the respondent for the Assessment year 2003-2004 (CST) and thus render justice. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali ^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran Spl. Govt. Pleader (Tax) * * * * :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the respondent.
2. The nitty-gritty of the grievance of the writ petitioner as found set
out in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would run thus:
In response to the respondent’s notice dated 23.07.2007, the petitioner
submitted his objection on 15.02.2008; whereupon on 18.02.2008, the respondent
issued a notice fixing the hearing date as 10.03.2008, but on that date no
enquiry was conducted. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner the
impugned order was passed on 29.04.2008, as though the petitioner did not
produce any evidence, even though the petitioner was ready and willing to
furnish the necessary accounts and evidence in support of the objection filed by
him.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds as found set out in the affidavit of the petitioner, has prayed this
Court that one more opportunity might be given to the petitioner to place the
evidence before the authority concerned.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader would oppose the move on the
ground that due opportunity was given, but on 10.03.2008, no evidence was
produced by the petitioner before the respondent. Now the issue lie within a
narrow compass. Put simply, the petitioner wants virtually one more opportunity
to produce necessary evidence in support of his objections.
5. In my considered opinion, one more opportunity could be granted instead
of delving deep into the issue as to whether actually opportunity had been given
or not. Adhering to the maxim audi alteram partem and in the interest of
objective justice, I would like to set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2007
with the direction that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent on
12.11.2008 at 10.00 a.m. with his evidence; whereupon the respondent shall
consider it objectively after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner and thereupon pass orders as per law. The petitioner shall cooperate
with the respondent for disposal. If there is any default on the part of the
petitioner, the respondent is at at liberty to pass orders as per law based on
the available materials.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 is closed.
smn
To
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.