COMMON ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment orders both dated 08.02.2022 for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 as detailed below:-

2.The case of the petitioner is that they had filed periodical returns under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 as applicable to the provisions of the former Act. It is submitted that the assessment was deemed to have been completed on 30.06.2012. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings, which preceded two notices, dated 14.07.2021, long after the expiry of limitation i.e., on 30.06.2018 were without jurisdiction and therefore, they are liable to be quashed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following three decisions of this Court:-

(i) M/s.Sisco Medicals Device Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vivek Bajaj vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nandambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai [W.A.Nos.1843 & 1844 of

2021, dated 04.08.2021]

(ii) Tvl.Pupa Lineraa, Rep. by its Partner, S.Pushpa Rajan vs. The State Tax Officer, Karur-3 Division [W.P.(MD)No.14494 of 2021, dated

27.10.2021]

(iii) M/s.Adayar Bakery Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Adayar Assessment Circle, Chennai [W.P.Nos.3028, 3030 and 3031 of 2019, dated 09.11.2021]

4.Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court, dated 30.03.2022, in M/s.Parveeen Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai, [W.P.(MD)No.5713 of 2022], and sought for similar order may be passed by remitting the cases back to the respondent by giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional documents to substantiate that the petitioner had indeed filed all the returns in time together with required documents for completing the assessment.

5.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

6.Today, in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)No.5192 of 2022 etc.

batch, under somewhat similar circumstances, this Court has passed an order remitting the cases back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt a copy of that order. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:-

''7.The question of limitation against the respondent department from re-opening of the assessment would arise only where an assessee had filed all the related documents at the time of filing of returns. If the returns were filed along with the required documents, then, by virtue of fiction incorporated in Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Valued Added Tax Act, 2006, the assessment is deemed to have been completed on the date specified in the said Section. In these cases, it is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner had not filed the documents, whereas, it is the specific case of the petitioner that they have filed documents. If the documents have been filed, they would be available with the respondent. In any event, the petitioner will have a photocopy of the same.

8.Considering the above, I am inclined to remit the cases back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce original or photocopy of the relevant forms, which were not filed along with the returns filed by them for the respective assessment orders.

9.These Writ Petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connect