ORDER :

By this common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In both cases, the petitioner was issued with a notice for the assessment on 28.12.2011 and on 06.11.2014.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these Assessment Orders came to be passed after the amendments were made to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 vide an Act 23 of 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012. It is submitted that though notice for the assessments were issued to the petitioner on 28.12.2011 and on 06.11.2014, since the assessments were not completed, by operation of law as per the amendment under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there was deemed assessment under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is submitted that the impugned orders were (passed) without any jurisdiction. This aspect was also considered by this Court vide its order dated 13.01.2017 while granting interim relief to the petitioner by restraining the respondent from proceeding further with the recovery proceedings.

4. It was submitted that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction in view of the amendment under proviso Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 with effect from dated 19.06.2012. Therefore, these orders are liable to be quashed while giving liberty to the respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner to recover the tax that may have escaped assessment in accordance with law.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 15.11.2016 & 08.12.2016 have been passed pursuant to the notices dated 28.12.2011 and 19.11.2014 for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was a fire accident in the petitioner’s factory on 13.08.2012 and a F.I.R came to be filed on 14.08.2012 and that subsequently due to the flood that ravaged the Chennai City during December 2015, not only the stocks of the petitioner’s were lost but also the records. Therefore, there are no records that are available with the petitioner's company relating the sales, returns filed for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 vide Tamil Nadu ACT 13/2015 with effect from 29.01.2016, the assessments which had not been completed for the Assessment Years commencing from 2006-2007 up to 2010-2011, it shall be deemed to have been assessed on 30.06.2012. Therefore, the impugned orders passed were contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 as made applicable to assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was for the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 within the period of limitation. Instead, the impugned orders dated 15.11.2016 and 08.12.2016 have been for the respective Assessment Years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even at the time of considering the stay petition, this Court considered the hardship caused to the petitioner and therefore restrained the respondent from initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner.

9. It is further submitted that the Court has not granted any stay or injunction to restrain the respondent from invoking jurisdiction (power) under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and therefore, any notice that can be issued will have to pass the test of limitation under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and therefore prays for allowing the writ petitions.

10. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Venkateswara & Co. Vs Deputy Commercial T