The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to have an opportunity to respond to the proceedings and the directive for the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner with relevant licenses and court orders for pending civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in WP.No.1865 of 2013: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ or order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in his impugned notice in Ref.No1/2012/A2 dated 27.12.2012 and quash the same.

in WP.No.16721 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ or order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to order dated 04.04.2012 made in R.P.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Joint Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore Division and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from carrying on business so far as not to affect the rights of the petitioner.)

1. Writ Petition No.16721 of 2012 has, in my view, been rendered in fructuous. The petitioner therein has challenged order dated 04.04.2012 on the primary ground that no opportunity has been afforded to her by the Joint Commissioner prior to passing of the impugned order. However, the Joint Commissioner has merely remanded the proceedings to the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Palladam, who has been specifically directed to issue a notice to the petitioner prior to completion of proceedings.

2. Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Commercial Taxes Department also confirms that such notice, dated 25.04.2012, has been issued to the petitioner and the records available with him do not reflect any response from the petitioner (in W.P.No.16721 of 2012) to such notice.

3. In any event, since the matter is before the Commercial Tax Officer, who has issued a notice to the petitioner, I am of the view that the prayer sought for in this writ petition need not be pursued as the petitioner could well appear before the Commercial Tax Officer to advance her submissions. This Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioner directed to comply with the direction issued to her in paragraph 8 of this order.

4. As far as W.P.No.1865 of 2013 is concerned, the petitioner therein challenges notice dated 27.12.2012, which has been issued by the Commercial tax officer pursuant to order of Joint Commissioner dated 04.04.2012. The primary quarrel as against notice dated 27.12.2012 is that though styled as a notice, the Officer appears to have pre-determined the issue of cancellation of registration and has called upon the petitioner to surrender the registration certificates and intimate stoppage of functioning of the mill under threat that further action would be taken, in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act').

5. The Joint Commissioner in order dated 04.04.2012, has set aside order dated 07.12.2011 and remanded the proceedings to the Commercial Tax Officer for examination in the light of the licences granted by TANGEDCO and other local bodies as well as any order from the Civil Courts that may be produced by S.Jothimani (petitioner in W.P.No.16721 of 2012).

6. Pursuant to the remand by the Joint Commissioner on 04.04.2012, the Commercial Tax Officer has issued a notice on 25.04.2012 calling upon the petitioner (in W.P.No.1865 of 2013) to produce the licences issued by TANGEDCO as well as by local bodies within 15 days of receipt of the notice, failing which the order of cancellation of registration would be confirmed without further reference to the petitioner. On 16.05.2012, the petitioner has responded enclosing, (extracted as per his reply), the following 7 documents.

'(1) Electricity Board card Xerox copy in the name of “N Selvaraj” in connection No:624 (New No.060-003-581)

(2) Copy of the EB letter in No.:615/12 dt 27.03.2012, stating that EB connection is in the name of “N Selvaraj” and other partners namely Smt.Karunaiammal, Thiru N Sundarraj & Tmt S Jothimani, HAVE GIVEN THEIR NO OBJECTION to give the connection in the name of “N Selvaraj”

Further EB has stated that the security deposit is in the name of “N Selv