IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

Writ Petition No. 5884 of 2006

and

W.M.P. No. 6377 of 2006

---

M/s. Seematti Sarees

Rep by its Proprietorix

Tmt. C.A. Beevi Jhon

18,19,20, Suba Govindam Bldgs,

Imperial Road,

Cuddalore 607 002

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Secretary

Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Main Bench, Chennai.

2.The commercial Tax Officer

Cuddalore Town Circle

Cuddalore

.. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling

for the records of the First respondent in its proceedings in

STA. No. 599/2001 dated 17.11.2005 and quash the same as

illegal and contrary to the principles of assessment.

For Petitioner

:

Mrs. R. Hemalatha

For Respondents

:

Mr. NRR.Arun Natarajan

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

(Order of the court was made by R. Mahadevan, J)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, calling in

question the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the first

respondent in STA. No. 599 of 2001 and quash the same as

illegal and contrary to the principles of assessment.

2.

The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Tamil

Nadu General Sales Tax Act (in short the Act) engaged in the

business of purchase and sales of goods in the nature of

textiles, sarees and mill goods, which according to them, are

exempted from payment of tax under the Act. Therefore, for the

assessment year 1992-1993, the petitioner reported a total

turnover of Rs.35,96,693/- and nil taxable turnover. However,

the second respondent determined the total taxable turnover as

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rs.53,48,356/- purportedly on the ground of non-production of

books of accounts. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate

authority remanded the matter back to the second respondent

upon production of books of accounts. After remand, by an

order dated 14.01.2000, the second respondent passed an order

determining a taxable turnover of Rs.17,51,663/-, who arrived

at such a conclusion based on the inspection conducted by the

Enforcement wing officials on 22.04.1993 at the place of

business of M/s. Seematti Silks at No.289, Tenkasi Road,

Rajapalayam and concluded that the said place of business at

Rajapalayam is the branch established by the petitioner.

During the course of such inspection, 35 slips were recovered

by issuing D-7 slips in the aforesaid premises, which formed

the basis for the assessment by the second respondent.

According to the second respondent, out of the 35 slips

recovered, two slips pertains to the business transaction the

said firm had with the petitioner. But the petitioner would

contend that the said firm is not their branch firm as

concluded by second respondent and therefore, the entire

assessment is vitiated.

3.

As against the order of assessment passed by the

second respondent, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the

first appellate Authority, who modified the order passed by the

second respondent and confirmed the actual suppression to the

tune of Rs.11,65,775/- @ 5% besides deleting the 50% probable

addition made on the above sustained turnover. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the

first respondent in T.A. No. 518 of 2001 and it was dismissed

for default. Therefore, the petitioner has taken out an

application to restore the appeal. In the meantime, the

department preferred an appeal in S.T.A. No. 599 of 2001 as

against the portion of the deletion ordered by the Appellate

Authority. The Tribunal, without hearing the petitioner, has

allowed the appeal filed by the Department in S.T.A. No. 599 of

2001 by setting aside the order passed by the Appellate

Authority.