Jurisdictional challenges cannot be raised after participating in remanded proceedings where the issue could have been agitated previously. However, the principles of natural justice require that an assessee be granted a fair opportunity to contest the merits of tax demands when liability is increased based on submitted records.

ORDER :

C. Saravanan, J.

Mr.T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondents.

2. These Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.

3. This is the second round of litigation before this Court for the Assessment years 2013-14, 2014-2015. Earlier the first respondent had passed two assessment orders for these two assessments years on 29.06.2022 and consequential recovery notices 12.09.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.Nos.27182 and 27185 of 2022. The petitioner appears to have registered originally with the second respondent and that the petitioners assessment order was subsequently transferred to the second respondent in the year 2012 ( September 2012).

4. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit reads as follows:

4. The petitioner is a civil works contractor initially registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 herein after referred to as the TNVAT Act, 2006 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 herein after referred to as the CST Act, 1956 on the file of the second respondent in the year 2001 and after shifting its business place to Coimbatore in the year 2012, the petitioner was registered on the files of the third respondent under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 with effect from 10.09.2012. As regards the shifting of its business and to closing their registration with the second respondent, the petitioner has filed a letter with the second respondent, the petitioner has filed a letter with the second respondent but however the copy of the letter and proof of filing such letter has been misplaced by the petitioner. On obtaining a fresh registration with the third respondent with effect from 10.09.2012 the petitioner was filing their monthly returns with the third respondent. During the assessment year 2013-2014, the petitioner had filed their monthly returns in Form I declaring their works contract turnover with the third respondent. In respect of the works contract done by the petitioner to the High Ways Department and also to the private parties, tax was deducted at source (TDS) by the contractors and Form T (certificate of tax deducted at source) was issued to the petitioner and they remitted the tax deducted at source to the third respondent’s office.

5. The order that was earlier passed on 29.06.2022 for the respective assessment years were thus challenged in the above mentioned writ petitions, wherein the Court has recorded the submissions of the petitioner and the same is as follows:

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a civil contractor initially registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (in short 'TNVAT Act, 2006) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short 'CST Act' 1956) on the file of the 2^nd respondent viz., the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Perundurai Assessment Circle, Perundurai in the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted its business place to Coimbatore in the year 2012 and registered on the file of the 3^rd respondent viz., The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Peelamedu South Assessment Circle, Coimbatore under the provisions of the TNVAT Act,2006 with effect from 10.09.2012. In this regard, the petitioner had fil