The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine third parties and the prohibition on concluding assessment proceedings without such opportunity.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in TNGST/1501028/2000-01 dated 11.02.2013 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal without authority of law and violative of principles of natural justice.)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order in TNGST/1501028/2000-01 dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of iron and steel products and a registered dealer. The dispute relate to the assessment year TNGST 2000-01. The petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.59,49,20,941/- and tax of Rs.15,92,06,913/- the petitioner claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs.42,60,88,808/- representing second sales of iron and steel products. The assessment was accepted on the ground that there is no tax payable. On the basis of search in the premises of the petitioner a pre-revision notice dated 30.09.2002 was sent. On the basis of the notice during the search, it was found that he had effected purchases from the dealers namely, (i) M/s.Aashana Enterprises, (ii) M/s.Kamlesh Enterprises and (iii) M/s. Shreyanesh Ispat Chennai P.Ltd.

3. Even though it is stated that purchases have been effected, there is no movement of goods. It is stated that statements were taken from the employees of the above said three dealers, from whom the petitioner have purchased the products. Accordingly, additions are made to the taxable turnover. A pre-revision notice was sent to the petitioner. On receipt of the pre-revision notice, the petitioner denied the allegations and sought for a registration of the said dealers and assessment details of the dealers. Copies of the statements were recorded from the dealers who sold goods in question and also the traders whom are said to be having business adjacent placed to the place of business of the petitioner. Request was made to cross examine the persons who have given statements by the petitioner.

4. Since the request of the petitioner was not accepted, the petitioner filed WP.No.33108 of 2004. This Court by an order dated 18.11.2004, recorded the submissions of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner should be furnished with D7 records. This Court also directed the respondent to afford opportunity to the petitioners to cross examine the parties. Para 3 of the order reads as under:-

"It is submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr.K.V.Venatapathy that the impugned orders have been passed without affording opportunity to the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have sought for D7 records but the same were not furnished and no opportunity was also afforded to the petitioners to cross-examine third parties, which are not disputed by other side. On that ground, the impugned orders are set aside. These cases are remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The respondents are directed to furnish D7 records at the cost of the petitioners to cross-examine the third parties and pass orders on the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

5. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before he authority on 27.12.2012 and was ready to cross examine the persons to who had given statements. The petitioner states that he appeared for the purpose of cross examining the dealers and no witnesses were produced on the side of the respondent. The petitioner received the impugned order dated 11.02.2013 which confirmed the pre-revision notice. The order dated 11.02.2013 is now challenged in the instant writ petition.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that notice and summons have been sent to the representatives of the three dealers namely (i) M/s.Aashana