D. Krishnakumar, J.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the fair and decreetal order passed in CFR No. 2028 in Unfiled O.S. No.- of 2016, dated 31.08.2016, by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.

2. The petitioners herein as plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the 4 notices dated 29.09.2015 for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 issued by the first defendant to the plaintiff is illegal and void ab initio and consequently for an order of injunction, restraining the first defendant from passing any further order on the strength of the notices dated 29.09.2015 issued against the plaintiff firm for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The plaint was initially presented before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, on 18.08.2016 and the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru returned the plaint with the following endorsements:

"1. How this suit is maintainable when there is a specific provisions under Sections 52 and 75 of TNVAT Act, 2006?

2. How this suit is not barred by limitation under Section 76 of TNVAT Act, 2006?

3. How this suit is maintainable when there is a specific bar under Section 77 of TNVAT Act, 2006?"

The plaint was represented on 19.08.2016 with the following endorsement:

"Under the notices issued by the first respondent sought to assess the plaintiff for transporting oil through the lorries owned by the persons mentioned in the above said notices issued by the first defendant. Merely because the lorries used for transporting oil from Tuticorin are owned by one of the partners of the plaintiff firm. It does not mean the plaintiff firm is involved in the business. The provisions of Section 75 and 76 prohibits the filing of suits with respect to the acts of the Government servants while exercising the powers conferred under the Act. But the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, does not authorize the officials of the Commercial Tax Department to assess the persons, who carry the commodities for trade. The plaintiff has involved in any business as alleged in the notices. Hence, the notice per se unlawful. Hence the suit is filed for a declaration that those notices are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Under Section 9 CPC the declaratory decree can be granted only the Civil Court. The plaintiff not being a party to the business cannot be called upon to pay sale tax for the business done by somebody. As per the notice, the person owning the lorries used for transporting the oil is owned by Rajendran and merely because he happens to be one of the partners. Hence, the provisions of Sections 52, 75, 76 and 77 may not apply to this case and the suit is maintainable before the civil Court"

Thereafter, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.D.M.C. v. Satish Chand (deceased) by L.R.Ram Chand in AIR 2003 SC 3187, the Trial Court returned the plaint with the following endorsement: "

Under the TNVAT Act, 2006, a special remedy has been provided against any order passed under the said Act and there is no bar under the Act for a third party to the commercial transaction to seek that special remedy. Further, the Act also provides for certain specific bar and preconditions for filing of a civil suit. Therefore, how this plaint is maintainable in law? Hence, returned".

Thereafter, the plaint has been represented before the Trial Court on 22.08.2016 and the same was called before the Court on 26.08.2016 regarding the maintainability of the suit and after hearing the arguments advanced on the side of the petitioners/ plaintiffs, the Trial Court observed that the suit is not maintainable in law and the same is also barred by law and ultimately rejected the plaint. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the assessment orders passed by the Department violates the principles of natural justice and not following the procedures an