The court balanced the interests of the revenue and the petitioner in quashing the recovery notices and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order as far as deficit stock is concerned.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in ROC:1714/2017/A3, quash the bank attachment notice dated 10.03.2022 issued therein.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.03.2022 bearing ROC:1714/2017/A3.

2. This is the 3rd round of litigation before this Court. The petitioner has suffered assessment orders dated 29.05.2017 for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2015-2016 and an assessment order dated 02.06.2017 for the assessment year 2013-2014.

3. The following three issues were the subject matter of these three assessment orders:

(i)Demand under Section 19(2)(v) of the TNVAT Act,

(ii)Invisible loss and

(iii)Deficit stock.

4. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.Nos.16000 to 16004 of 2017. This Court passed an order dated 18.09.2017 at the time of admission and set aside the orders and remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh order. The said order was passed after hearing the counsel for petitioner and respondents. The issues involved are narrated in paragraph No.3 of the said order. It reads as under:

“3.The two issues, which arises for consideration in the matters, are as follows:-

(i) whether the percentage of loss of materials (invisible loss) as computed by the respondent is correct; and

(ii) with regard to effect of Section 19(2)(5)* [*19(2)(v)] of the Act.”

5. In paragraph Nos.5, 6 & 7, the Court observed as under:

“5.However, in the instant case, such an exercise has not been done. Though on the date when the impugned order was passed, the decision in the case of Interfit Techno Products Ltd. Vs.Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and another was very much available, wherein the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to submit objections and the assessment was ordered to be re-done.

6.So far as the second issue is concerned, the Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that writ appeals have been preferred by the State, against the order in the case of Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu And Another, and the appeals are yet to be numbered.

7.Be that as it may, as on date, the writ appeals filed by the state challenging the correctness of the decision in Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu And Another, are yet to be numbered and mere pendency of such appeals cannot operate as stay of orders in Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu And Another. Therefore as on date, the said order holds good. Thus, on the second aspect also, the assessment requires to be re-done.”

6. In paragraph No.8, this Court set aside the assessment orders impugned in these Writ Petitions. Thereafter, the respondent issued fresh pre-revision notices for these assessment years on 09.03.2021 while dropping the demand in so far as 19(2)(v) of the TNVAT Act in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge in Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another.

7. The petitioner filed a common objection which ultimately culminated in assessment orders dated 08.06.2021 for these assessment years. In all these orders, issue was confined only to invisible loss which was subject matter of the 2nd round of litigation before this Court in W.P.Nos.14166, 14176, 14171, 14173 & 14175 of 2021.

8. This Court following the decisions rendered earlier, thus allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. This has lead to third round of assessment order all dated 07.12.2021 for these assessment years, which were more or less intended to give effect to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14166, 14176, 14171, 14173 & 14175 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021.

9. The res