JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff in O.S.No.53 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on their business at Kaliyavoor, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. It was an assessee under the second defendant. The plaintiff's partnership accounts for the period from 1985-86 to 1993-94 were verified by the second defendant and an order of nil assessment was also made. However, a demand notice under form B-6 was sent calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.9,31,349/-. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed O.P.No.407 of 2000 before the Tamilnadu Taxation Special Tribunal. The case of the plaintiff before the Tribunal was that the order reopening the assessments was not served on it. The said contention was controverted by the authorities who claimed that the assessment order was served on the plaintiff on 24.05.1999 itself. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the authorities and dismissed the O.P. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.980 of 2001 before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. While granting interim stay, the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 19.04.2001, directed the plaintiff to deposit 50% of the assessed tax amount within a period of five weeks.

3. Challenging the same, the plaintiff moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which upheld the submission of the plaintiff as regards non-service of the assessment order. The department was directed to serve the assessment order, so as to enable the plaintiff to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court, copies of the assessment order were served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Tirunelveli who vide order dated 11.05.2004 allowed the appeal and set aside the levy of sales tax.

4. Earlier, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 14.12.2002 addressed to the defendants demanding damages to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. The plaintiff wanted to know as to how the defendants took the stand that the assessment order was served on the plaintiff on 24.05.1999. After succeeding before the appellate authority, the plaintiff filed W.P.(MD)No.1872 of 2005 for directing the Government of Tamilnadu and the assessing officer to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 26.06.2007. W.A. (MD)No.38 of 2007 questioning the said order was also dismissed. Review Application (MD)No.50 of 2007 also met the same fate.

Thereafter, the present suit came to be laid for directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as damages with subsequent interest. The suit was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.09.2012. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to reverse the decision of the trial Court and allow the appeal and decree the suit as prayed for. According to him, without any justification, concluded assessments were re-opened. The plaintiff was made to run literally from pillar to post. The plaintiff had to move the tribunal, single Judge of the High Court, Division Bench of the High Court and then the Supreme Court. In terms of the liberty given by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff moved the appellate authority. The plaintiff was put to untold hardship only because the defendants took a false stand that the order reopening the assessments was served on the plaintiff. In fact, the said order was served on an unconnected entity by name R.K.Enterprises. Therefore, the defendants ought to appropriately compensate the plaintiff. The Court below had erroneously applied the rule of limitation and non-suited the plaintiff. According to the appellant's counsel, there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.

6. Per contra, the learned co