The authority's power to summon records under Section 81 remains intact, regardless of deemed completion of assessments under Section 22, to ensure the correctness of tax returns.

C O M M O N O R D E R

By this common order, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

2. In these present Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned summon issued in Form PP calling upon the respective petitioners to furnish the following documents:- “1.Trading account, profit and loss account and balance sheet with schedules, Income Tax returns and audited statement in form 3CD of the Income Tax Act

1961.

2.Cash Book, Day book, Petty Cash Book, Bank Book, 3.Purchase account, Sales account, Consignment account, stock transfer account, Productions-cum-stock register/manufacturing account, 4.Input Tax Adjustment account, Input Tax on Capital Goods adjustment account, Purchase register, purchase return register, debit notes, 5.Sales register, sales return register, credit notes, stock book register, delivery notes register, transit pass account register, Ledgers, 6.Purchase invoices, Sales Invoices

7.Copy of Delivery challan in form JJ along with register

8.Registers maintained under CST Act viz Form No. 8, Form No. 8-A, Form No. 10, Form No. 12 and form No. 13 with respect of utilization of declaration forms received from the assessing authorities / issued through electronic declaration forms.

9.Export Documents, declaration forms etc for proof of exemptions claimed, if any

10.Transport records and connected Proof for claim of E1 Sales / Form F exemption.”

3. The impugned summon has been issued to the respective petitioners under Rule 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Rule 16(1) is intended for implementing Section 81 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that summon in Form PP under Rule 16(1) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 applies only to a third party and not to an assessee. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed returns under Section 21 of TNVAT Act, 2006 and therefore, the assessment was deemed to have been completed on 31.10.2016 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 in terms of Section 22 (2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would therefore submit that the power to summon documents or information from an assessee, who has filed regular returns could be only in accordance with Section 22 (3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

6. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned summon is liable to be quashed. A specific reference was made to a decision of this Court rendered on 19.05.2021 in the petitioner's own case in W.P.(MD) Nos.

11328 to 11335 of 2017, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“3. His core contention is that it is only the Commissioner of Commercial Tax who could have called upon the petitioner to produce the documents in question for detailed scrutiny and that the respondent herein is not possessed of the jurisdiction to do so. There can be no exception to his contention. In fact, the same is virtually conceded by the respondent. But then, the respondent would state that it was the Commissioner of Commercial Tax who had chosen the petitioner's assessment for random scrutiny and that pursuant to his proceedings dated 21.04.2017, the impugned summons came to be issued. However, in the impugned summons, there is no reference to the Commissioner's proceedings. 4. In any event, in view of the interim stay granted by this court, the summons have become virtually infructuous. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent to issue a fresh summon in this regard. When the respondent issues summons, the respondent will take care to make a clear reference to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax referred to in the counter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

7. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent Commercial Tax Department would submit that the impugned summon has been issued in consonance of Rule 10(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Specifically, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent would draw attention to