Tvl. Kalaiqueenee Agencies vs The Special Committee under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act, 1959, office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600005 and The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Now re-designated as Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam Road Circle, Coimbatore

M. Jaichandren

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The main contention of the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not provided with the copies of the records, said to have been recovered by

the second respondent, during the inspection of the place of the business of the petitioner, on 4.11.2003, relating to the transactions for the

assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04.

It has been stated that the petitioner had filed an application before the first respondent, u/s 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,

1959, requesting the first respondent to set aside the order of the assessing officer, dated 15.2.2005, stating that the said order had been passed

by the assessing officer, the second respondent herein, without following the principles of natural justice. However, the first respondent had

rejected the application made by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not made any request for the copies of the slips recovered during the

inspection, on 4.11.2003, relating to the transactions for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 in the reply given, on 12.7.2004. Further, the dealers

had not requested for the copies of D7 records. Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged by the petitioner. As

such, the assessment order passed by the assessing authority, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the rules

framed thereunder, cannot be held to improper and invalid.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the order of

the first respondent, dated 4.11.2011, is set aside and if the second respondent is directed to furnish the records recovered from the place of the

business of the petitioner, during the inspection conducted, on 4.11.2003, in respect of the transactions relating to the assessment years 2002-03

and 2003-04.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had no objection for this Court passing such an order.

In view of the above, the order of the first respondent, dated 4.11.2011, is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to make a formal request to the

second respondent to furnish the copies of the records recovered from the place of the business of the petitioner, during the inspection conducted,

on 4.11.2003, in respect of the transactions for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. On receipt of such request, the respondent shall

furnish the relevant documents, as stated above, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.