Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3440
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
M/s. Sharda Industries, rep. by its Partner Khimraj Sakariya
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Evening Bazaar Assessment Circle
Writ Petition Nos.27576 and 27577 of 2007
Decided On : 01-11-2007
For the Petitioner:D. Trilokchand Chopda, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Mahadevan, Additional Government Pleader (Tax).
The main legal point established is that the principles of natural justice and fair play, burden of proof, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Assessment Orders - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Section 7-A, 16(2), 10(3) - The court discussed the principles of natural justice and fair play, the burden of proof, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer and exporter of Stainless Steel Utensils, challenged the revision of assessment orders and imposition of tax and penalty by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's orders were based on documentary and oral evidence, and the petitioners had an alternative appellate remedy under the law.
Issues: The issues involved denial of copies of records, cross-examination, burden of proof, and the availability of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had an alternative appellate remedy and dismissed the writ petitions, permitting the petitioners to file statutory appeals.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were permitted to file statutory appeals within a specified period.
Mr.R.Mahadevan, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), takes notice for the respondent.
2. Heard Mr.D.Trilokchand Chopda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr.R.Mahadevan, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), appearing for the respondent.
3. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
4. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner industry is a manufacturer and exporter of Stainless Steel Utensils and it is an assessee on the files of the respondent. The respondent, after checking and verifying the accounts of the petitioners, had passed assessment orders for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, dated 22. 2001 and 37. 2002, respectively.
.6. It is further submitted that the place of the business of the petitioners was inspected, on 112. 2004, and a statement was recorded. Apart from the verification, the details of purchases made from M/s.Aashana Enterprises and M/s.Kamalesh Enterprises were verified. Thereafter, the inspecting authorities had once again verified the purchases and sales, on 2. 2005, and the petitioner had filed the copies of the records and other details, including the written submissions, dated 12. 2005.
7. It is further submitted that the respondent had proposed to revise the assessment order and had sought to levy tax, under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on purchases made from M/s.Aashana Enterprises and M/s.Kamalesh Enterprises making an assessment on deemed sale value and levied penalty, under Sections 16(2) and 10(3) of The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner had filed interim objections, dated 3. 2005 and 211. 2005, respectively, for both the assessment years requesting the respondent to furnish the copies of the records and the statements relied upon for revising the assessment orders and for an opportunity of cross-examining the dealers along with their accounts, personal hearing and for time for submission of a final reply in the matter.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioners had appeared and produced all the records before the enforcement authorities and had also filed written submissions, dated 12. 2005, along with the records relating to the purchases from the dealers, sales made by the petitioners and particulars on receipt of the goods, payment etc. The records produced by the petitioners had clearly shown the delivery of goods at the petitioners factory directly by the sellers and unloading of the goods by the petitioners employees. Therefore, the proposed revision is against the principles of natural justice and fair play, as it is contrary to the records available and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners of cross-examination of the persons concerned and without furnishing the copies of the records and statements relied upon by the enforcement authorities.
.9. Among the various grounds stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners had also submitted that denial of the copies of the records and an opportunity of cross-examining the persons, on whose statements the enforcement authorities had arrived at their conclusions to fasten the liability on the dealers such as the petitioners, is totally against the well established principles of law and contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court.
10. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the respondent in the above writ petitions had sought to revise the original assessment orders on the basis of the statement of one S.Mahendra Kumar Jain for the levy of tax and penalty on the petitioners. The petitioners had filed an interim objection requesting the respondent to furni
