COMMON ORDER

The petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions challenging the impugned assessment orders for the following assessment years.

2.The background of the case is that the petitioner was engaged in trading of textiles and garments and they were also having showrooms in Kumbakonam and Thanjavur. The partnership firms were dissolved and a private limited company was formed in September 2019. The new entity continued with the same trading activities from the three showrooms of the separate partnership firms in Ramanathapuram, Kumbakonam and Thanjavur. While so, the Officers from the State Tax Department conducted inspection under Section 67 of the TNGST Act in the three showrooms from 14.09.2021 to 16.09.2021. During the course of surprise inspection, the inspection team had found certain irregularities in the transactions of the dealers and revision of assessment was made based on the inspection report. On the strength of that, show cause notice was issued to the dealers to explain the issue with documentary evidences.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had issued communication in Form DRC-01A in terms of Rule 142(1A) of the TNGST Rules, 2017, all dated 06.12.2021, for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, pointing out the defects involving tax liabilities and for non-maintenance of accounts. The petitioner requested 30 days' time to submit their response to the above said communication, vide letter dated 22.12.2021. Thereafter, the respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2021, had directed the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing. The petitioner, vide letter dated 03.01.2022, replied in Part-B of Form DRC-01A stating that the liability to tax as stated in subject intimation as well as the quantification are not agreeable as the same are not correct on facts and law.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inspection and investigation have been conducted by different officers in a wrong manner, resulting in misunderstanding of facts and misinterpretation of provisions, misapplication of tariff and exemption notifications. The learned counsel also submits that the proceedings carried out were completely perverse and information and statements collected with intimation, an inducement of dropping of proceedings, are in complete violation of principles of natural justice and unreliable and the demand made in Form DRC-01A has to be rejected.

5.The contention of the petitioner is that, the Officers from the State Tax Department conducted inspection under Section 67 of the TNGST Act in three branches of the petitioner company from 14.09.2021 under orders issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Intelligence) in Form GST INS-01 at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur and Ramanathapuram showrooms, statements recorded from the Manager and Directors of the petitioner company. Subsequently, the respondent issued communication in Form DRC-01A in terms of Rule 142(1A) of the TNGST Rules, 2017, dated 06.12.2021, separately on the petitioner's Firm for the years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The above said communications pointed out, narrated various defects noticed during the inspection and given details of taxes, interest and penalty as payable by the petitioner company under each head. In the said communications, it was stated that if the petitioner had any objection to the notice, reply in writings to be filed before the 'Proper Officer' within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, orders will be passed accordingly, confirming the tax, penalty and interest as already proposed in the notice, as per th