TVL. NATARAJ OIL MILLS(P)LTD., V. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

WP(MD)/948/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Tvl. Nataraj Oil Mills (P) Ltd., which challenged a notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Melur, and other officials, alleging that the notice consolidated multiple assessment years into a single notice, which was against the procedural requirements of the TNVAT Act and CST Act. The petitioner argued that each assessment year should have a separate notice and that the procedures for issuing notices and conducting assessments were not followed. The court agreed with the petitioner on the procedural grounds and directed the issuance of separate notices and the proper conduct of assessments for each year individually.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697631 (HC-MADURAI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: B.Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu
• Laws Referred To: TNVAT Act, CST Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R KARTHIKEYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S RAHMAN
• Keywords: CST Act; Income Tax Credit; Tax Exemption; VAT Act; Writ of Certiorari; ITC claims; Non-filing of Form C and Form-F
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.09.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition (MD)No.948 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 TVL.NATARAJ OIL MILLS (P) LTD., represented by its Managing Director, Mr.K.S.R.Natarajan. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Melur. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Commercial Tax Department, Madurai-20. 3. The Joint Commissioner (CT), Commercial Tax Department, Madurai-20. 4. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Enforcement, Madurai. 5. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent in his notice TIN 33774940751, dated 08.01.2013 and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to issue separate notice for each every assessment year under the VAT Act and CST Act by following the procedure. For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the notice, dated 08.01.2013 issued by the 4th respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to issue separate notification for each assessment year under the VAT Act and CST Act, by following procedures under the relevant statute. 2.The petitioner is a private Limited Company, selling oil directly through commission agent within Tamil Nadu through M/s.Nataraja Oil Mills (P) Limited. The petitioner was issued notice, dated 16.03.2012, proposing to revise the ITC claims, disallowing exemptions, wrong availment of income tax credit, apart from charring higher rate of tax on goods, alleging non- filing of Form C and Form- F Declaration etc., for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the Assessing Authority has chosen to issue one notice for four assessment years, both in respect of TNVAT Act and CST Act. This, according to the petitioner, is incorrect and against the provisions of the statute. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 48-STC-274 in the case of B.Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and an unreported decision of this court made in W.P.No.5954 of 2012, dated 16.03.2012. 4.In the present matter, apart from issuance of a single notice, for all assessment years, in respect of both statutes, parallel summons were issued by the Enforcing Authority to produce the records. If the Assessing Authority is of the view that there are wrong turnover, wrong availment of IDC and wrongful of such other matters, then he is bound to issue notice clearly indicating the reason for such a provisional conclusions. If the Assessing Authority relies upon the findings of the Enforcement Officer, in pursuance of a search conducted in the business premises or such other matters based on such report of the Enforcing Officials, the first respondent has to issue notice to the petitioner, furnishing information, receive their objections and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, then, decide the matter and there cannot be any parallel proceedings in the matter. 5.Further more, each assessment is an independent proceeding and therefore, issuance of pre-assessment notice for all the assessment years under both TNVAT Act and CST Act, is not correct. 6.The impugned proceedings are only a summon issued by the 4th respondent, who is the Enforcing Officer. The Assessing Authority is the first respondent. In this case, the Enforcing Officer has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 called upon the petitioner to appear along with day book, ledger, purchase and sale bills and connected records. In my considered view, the petitioner has to appear before the Assessing Authority with all relevant records. Since, the impugned proceedings are only a summon, the same need not be quashed. However, it has to be kept in abeyance, till the proceedings are concluded by the first respondent. 7.Accordingly, there shall a direction to the first respondent to issue notice independently for each assessment year and call for the documents, such as day book, ledger, purchase and sale bills and connected records from the petitioner, as sought for by the Enforcing Officer, which shall be produced before the first respondent by the petitioner. On production of the same, the first respondent shall consider and issue independent show cause notice for each assessment year under both the statutes. On receipt of such show cause notices, the petitioner shall submit their objections and reply and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent shall take a decision in the matter, within a period of three months thereafter. 8.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.,) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Melur. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Commercial Tax Department, Madurai-20. 3. The Joint Commissioner (CT), Commercial Tax Department, Madurai-20. 4. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Enforcement, Madurai. 5. The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, in SR No.51320. +1cc to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, in SR. No.51181. W.P.(MD)No.948 of 2013 10.09.2014 er msm 01.10.2014 p3/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "