The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, based on the involvement of the appellant in the business and the veracity of his claims.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 08.10.2020 made in W.P.No.172 of 2020.)

1. This appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 08.10.2020, passed in W.P.No.172 of 2020.

2. Heard Mr. K.M. Malarmannan, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr.Md. Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent/Department.

3. The appellant filed the said writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated 10.09.2015, passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the assessment year 2014-15.

4. The appellant’s case is that he is not the Proprietor of M/s.Rajaram Lamp House and his father, Mr.Jodharam, was running the said business in Shop No.5, Kasi Chetty Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079.

5. The appellant would state that the place of business was inspected by the Officials of the Enforcement Wing on 15.10.2014, and certain defects were pointed out and the appellant’s father was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,45,850/- towards tax in respect of the stock held by him in the shop during the inspection.

6. It is the further case of the appellant that his father, due to ill-health, had closed down the business and left for Rajasthan during the end of 2015. The appellant also had gone to his native place and he returned to Chennai during September, 2019 and on his return, found that his bank account, maintained with the Syndicate Bank, George Town Branch, Chennai, was freezed by the first respondent/Department.

7. The appellant would state that he was not served with any notice before passing the assessment order dated 10.09.2015, and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the appellant would state that the Department cannot proceed against him, as it is his father, who was running the business and he had closed down the business in the year 2015 and before that, he had cleared the arrears of tax and therefore, the impugned assessment order has to be quashed.

8. The first respondent, viz., the Assessing Officer, in their counter affidavit, filed in the writ petition, has extensively set out the factual matrix to show that the appellant was involved in the said business and was present at the time of inspection and the pre-assessment notice dated 11.06.2015, was served on the dealer on 19.06.2015, but no objections were filed and therefore, final order of assessment was passed on 10.09.2015.

9. The stand taken by the appellant that the business was closed down by his father was disputed and the Department would state that no such intimation was given to the Department about the closure of the business.

10. The Department would further state that the appellant was carrying on the business and therefore, he is liable to clear the arrears of tax and penalty. Further, demand notices were served as early as on 14.12.2017 and 18.12.2017, and the stand taken by the appellant in the writ petition is wholly unsustainable. Further, the appellant, having been involved in the business along with his father, he is jointly and severally liable to pay the dues payable by his father and he cannot escape by contending that he has got nothing to do with the business.

11. Taking note of the submissions made on either side, the learned Single Bench, with a view to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the stand taken by the appellant, had summoned records from the Department. The compilation dated 08.09.2020, which was filed in the writ petition, contains the copy of the statement recorded at the time of inspection on 20.10.2014. The statement showed that the appellant as well as his father were in the premises when the inspection was conducted. The compilation also contains acknowledgement of the receipt of the pre-assessment notice dated 11.06.2015, which was received by an individual, who has signed and affixed the seal of the said dealer.

12. The Writ Court also noted that the orde