Shri Kuppayanna Swamy Agency vs The Commercial Tax Officer

T. Raja, J—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader(Taxes), who took notice for the respondent and with their consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal.

These three writ petitions are filed by M/s. Shri Kuppayanna Swamy Agency, represented by its Partner, challenging the impugned proceedings issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Santhyamangalam, in TIN Nos. 33362983080/2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively dated 18.05.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground that the Circular No. 7/2014 (BB1/3589/2014) dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has been overlooked and the respondent also has failed to consider the details submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner, who is a registered distributor of M/s. PEPSICO India Pvt. Ltd., paying VAT and filing monthly returns regularly, after receipt of notices in TIN Nos. 33362983080/2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively dated 24.02.2015, proposing VAT on discount received and reversal of ITC adjusted, appeared before the respondent along with original invoices on 13.02.2015, however, the respondent, again directed the petitioner to produce sample copies of invoices in their office. She would further submit that accordingly the copies of invoices were also produced by the petitioner before the respondent. But, all of a sudden, the impugned orders have been passed, contrary to the Circular No. 7/2014 (BB1/3589/2014) dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which clarifies that no order of revision should be made without affording an opportunity to the dealer as provided under Sections 22, 25 and 27 of the Act. On that basis, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent has violated the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Padinjarekara Agencies Limited Vs. State of Kerala, (2008) 1 CLT 679 : (2008) 2 JT 403 : (2008) 2 SCALE 317 : (2008) 3 SCC 597 : (2008) 1 UJ 280 : (2008) 13 VST 151 : (2008) AIRSCW 1570 : (2008) AIRSCW 3495 : (2008) 3 Supreme 671 .

This Courts finds it difficult to agree with any one of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for more than one reason. Admittedly, the petitioner received notices in respect of the assessment years in question dated 09.10.2014 and again the respondent has issued respective notices dated 12.01.2015 and finally, the petitioner was issued with the 3rd respective notices dated 24.04.2015. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner, after receipt of all these notices, appeared before the respondent on 13.02.2015 in person along with original invoices. When that be the case, it is not known why the petitioner has not gone before the respondent with a written reply. When the petitioner appeared before the respondent, in all fairness, he should have submitted his replies.

In view of the above, when the petitioner has received three notices on 09.10.2014, 12.01.2015 and 24.04.2015 for all the assessment years, finding that he has not filed any reply whatsoever to any one of the notices, this Court is of the view that the respondent is right in passing the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appellate authority, if so advised. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.