ORDER :

This is the second round of Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the same Assessment Year. Earlier, the petitioner had suffered an adverse order dated 29.09.2016 which came to be passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the taxable turnover of the petitioner was proposed to be re-determined based on the information gathered by the respondent from the website of the Commercial Tax Department. To this end, earlier, a notice dated 09.08.2016 was issued to the petitioner under Section 27 of the said Act.

2. As per the said revision notice, the petitioner had declared a purchase turnover of Rs.2,00,41,262/- in its returns, whereas, as per the information gathered from the web report, the petitioner had purchased goods worth Rs.3,05,55,027/-.

3. It was therefore proposed to re-determine the purchase and the sales turnover to demand a sum of Rs.5,88,771/- as the differential tax payable by the petitioner which had escaped assessment and an equal amount of penalty under Section 27(3)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Thus, the first revision order dated 29.09.2016 came to be passed by the respondent.

4. The petitioner challenged the same before this court in W.P.No.7286 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed by an order dated 24.03.2017 with the following observation :-

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) is not disputing the fact that the issue involved in this case is covered by the above decision of this Court. Therefore he submitted that the same order can be passed in this case as well. In the said order, the learned Judge had observed in paragraph 56, 57 and 58 as follows:-

56. The procedure adopted under the Maharastra VAT Act appears to be a more reasonable procedure, the Rules have been so designed to constitute independent authorities, who will in exercise jurisdiction to dispose of the objections etc. However, this Court cannot legislate nor direct the State to legislate in a particular passion and it is for the state to bring about and appropriate rules and set procedures so that when discrepancy is noted while comparing the return with that of the figures available with the Department in their web portal, there should be an exercise carried out by the department within its level before calling upon the dealer to show cause. This can be achieved only if there is a centralised mechanism and if the present practice is allowed to prevail, it would only result in multiplicity of proceedings with more number of cases pending before the Courts and Appellate forums, thus jeopardizing the interest of revenue. Therefore, it is high time the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in consultation with him officers lays out a detailed procedure as to how to take forward cases of mismatch, evolve a central mechanism, which can go into these aspect and furnish details in full form to the respective Assessing Officers, who can decide for themselves as to whether there is a case made out to call upon their dealer to explain. If this centralized mechanism is not put in place exclusively for such purpose, it would result in notices and orders being issued by the respective Assessing Officers without even the knowledge of the Assessing Officer of the other end dealer resultantly no action being taken against other end dealer, assuming, he is at fault. Therefore, it is high time the Department wakes up and stops the one way approach and examine the matter in a holistic manner so that the defaulting dealer is brought to books.

57. Hence, for all the above reasons, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the notices/orders either original or appellate or revisional are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respective Assessing Officers, to undertake a fresh exercise by conducting a thorough enquiry in consultation with the Assessing Officers of the other end dealer for which purpose the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall empow