AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—The writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in TIN:33655420773/ 2012-13 dated 24.07.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to re-do the assessment after providing the copies of the documents relied upon to the petitioner and by giving due opportunity to file their objection and for personal hearing.
It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the partner of the business concern in the name and style of ''Veyil Vantha Ambal & Company, dealing in iron and steel. The petitioner concern is registered on the file of the second respondent holding TIN.No.33655420773. The petitioner is regularly filing the monthly returns under the TamilNadu Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner has promptly adjusted the legitimate tax dues to the department from the Input Tax Credit available on the tax paid on his purchases. During the assessment year 2012-13, the second respondent has passed a deemed assessment order by accepting his return. Even before the completion of the deemed Assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, the 2nd respondent has issued a revision notice dated 04.01.2013, alleging that pursuant to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Porur Assessment Circle in Roc.No.3220/2012.A2, dated 09.11.2012, the petitioner has suppressed a sales turn over to one Tvl.Radhika Enterprises of Chennai (TIN No. 33261380598) and proposed to levy tax on the same. Immediately, on 11.01.2013, the petitioner filed his reply, denying the said allegations. The 2nd respondent, had again issued a notice, on 05.02.2013 alleging that pursuant to the above said sales suppression, the petitioner concern also suppressed a sales turn over to one Tvl.Shyam Sales Agency of Chennai (TIN.No.33301444014) and proposed to levy tax on the same. For the said notice, the petitioner filed his reply, on 08.03.2013, denying the allegations of the 2nd respondent and requested him to provide copies of the alleged proceedings referred in the notice. Hence, the petitioner filed an application dated 11.03.2013 under the Right to Information Act to the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Korattur Assessment Circle, Chennai and to the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Porur Assessment Circle, Chennai to provide the details with regard to the allegations in respect of the proceedings referred in the notice of the respondent. But the said applications were not considered by the authorities concerned till date.
Subsequently, there was a surprise inspection in his business premises on 17.06.2015 and on verification, various alleged defects in respect of assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14 were found out, by relying on the MIS report and internet website report of the department and a statement dated 18.06.2015 has also been recorded in this regard. In the said statement itself, the so-called alleged sales suppression details were included under the head ''sales suppression arrived by comparing the annexure I of the other end dealer through internet website report''. The petitioner has categorically denied the allegations and stated that his accounts are true and signed and received the statement with objection. However, the copies of the alleged MIS report, internet report were not provided to the petitioner.
Pursuant to the said inspection, the second respondent has issued a notice, dated 19.03.2015, alleging that during the subject assessment year 2012-13, there is a difference in sales turn over on verification of annexures of the other end dealers through the internet website of the department and on the basis of the MIS report and thereby proposed to arrive sales suppression. In the said notice, the second respondent had also proposed to levy tax on the alleged sales suppression and to add equal time addition for probable omission and also to levy penalty under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. His entire sales and purchases were duly accounted for in his books of accounts. Since the copies of the alleged internet website report, MIS report relied upon by the second respondent were not provided to the petitioner, according to him, the said notice of the second respondent is totally devoid of particulars. Hence, the petitioner sent a letter dated 22.04.2015 to the second respondent to provide him the copies of the alleged internet website report and then to grant further time to file his objection. Even after a lapse of more than one month, the second respondent has not provided the petitioner copies of the documents. Hence, the petitioner filed an application dated 02.06.2015 under the Right to Information Act and the same was received by the second respondent on 03.06.2015. At the same time, the 2nd respondent has sent his notice dated 28.05.2015 through registered post on 02.06.2015 and the same was received by the petitioner on 03.06.2015. In the said notice, it was falsely stated that the petitioner had filed his objection for the notice dated 19.03.2015. The said notice further informed the petitioner that he has to appear before the 2nd respondent on 11.06.2015 to get the copies of the alleged website report, MIS report, so-called annexures of the other end dealers and the alleged invoices and also for personal hearing. But, it is practically not possible to avail the opportunity of personal hearing and to depose the statement/explanations on the same day immediately after getting the alleged documents even without granting time to peruse the same and to compare with his accounts and returns. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent and filed his letter, dated 11.06.2015 with objections for his notice. In the said letter, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that he is ready to get the copies of the alleged documents and he requested the second respondent to grant one month time to file his objection and for personal hearing. The second respondent, has again sent a communication dated 30.06.2015 by enclosing the alleged list of purchase and sales details from other dealers annexure alone and falsely stated that alleged website report, MIS report, so-called annexures of the other end dealers were provided.
While the situation stood thus, in spite of the objections of the petitioner, the second respondent has also issued a notice dated 04.07.2015 directing the petitioner to file objections within 7 days. The petitioner immediately met the second respondent and requested him to provide the copies of the alleged documents relied upon by him in his notice and then to grant time to file his objections. But to his shock and surprise, the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment order in TIN. 33655420773/ 2012-13 dated 24.07.2015 by confirming his proposal vide his notice dated 19.03.2015. In the impugned order, the second respondent has not observed about the reply letters filed by the petitioner and he has not even recorded any reason for not providing the copies of the documents to the petitioner. Hence, according to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
(i) The respondent has failed to provide copies of the alleged documents relied upon in the notice.
(ii) The respondent has passed a non-speaking order without furnishing any documents to the petitioner.
It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the matter may be remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration.
The learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently opposed for remitting back the matter.
Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is constrained to pass the following order:
In the interest of justice, I am of the opinion the impugned order can be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 24.07.2015, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to provide all the documents relied on by them in the impugned notice, dated 24.07.2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing, pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.