IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 10.07.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

W.P.No.19130 of 2019

&

W.M.P.No.18499 of 2019

M/s.Tim India Exim

Represented by its Partner

No.675, 200 Feet Inner Ring Road

Madhavaram

Chennai-110

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Commercial Tax Officer

Madhavaram Assessment Circle

Chennai

.. Respondent

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari calling

for the records of the respondent in order dated 26.04.2019 in

TIN 33341088875/2013-14 and quash the same.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Adithya Reddy

For Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu

Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Mr.Adithya Reddy , learned counsel on record for writ

petitioner is before this Court. Mr.V.Haribabu, learned

Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of lone

official respondent.

2.With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main

writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being

disposed of.

3. Subject matter of this writ petition arises inter alia

under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32

of 2006)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TNVAT Act'

for brevity.

4.Writ petitioner is a dealer under TNVAT Act and a

revised Assessment Order dated 26.04.2019 bearing reference TIN

33341088875/2013-14 came to be passed by the lone respondent.

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

This revised Assessment Order, this Court is informed, is under

Section 27 of TNVAT Act. This revised Assessment Order has been

called in question in the instant writ petition and therefore,

the same shall be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake

of brevity, convenience and clarity.

5.Notwithstanding various averments in the affidavit

filed in support of the writ petition and the grounds raised

therein, learned counsel confined his submissions to one pivotal

ground and that pivotal ground is personal hearing was not

granted to the writ petitioner dealer before the impugned order

was passed.

6. In support of this personal hearing ground, learned

counsel for writ petitioner advanced following arguments:

a) Original revisional notice was issued more

than four years prior to the impugned order. To be

precise, original revisional notice was issued on

27.02.2015. Writ petitioner sent a reply to this

notice on 10.04.2015.

b) Thereafter there was a lull for more than 2

½ years. After 2 ½ years, on 29.11.2017, there was a

communication from the respondent calling upon the

writ petitioner dealer to produce as many as 23

purchase bills. This notice makes it clear that these

23 purchase bills have to be produced within three

days. It is the emphatic submission of learned

counsel that all the 23 purchase bills were submitted

to the respondents within three days. Thereafter,

there was again a lull for more than 1 ½ years and the

impugned order came to be passed, thereafter without

giving an opportunity to explain the purchase bills.

7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the

respondent has looked into the 23 purchase bills and that the

original invoice numbers and dates do not tally with the invoice

numbers and dates reported in the monthly returns is the finding

returned in the impugned order. To be noted, monthly returns

were obviously more than half a decade ago as instant impugned

order pertains Assessment Year 2013-14. In the light of lapse of

time and lull between the first revisional notice on 27.02.2015

and reply thereto on 10.04.2015 besides the lull after production

of 23 purchase bills in 2017 itself pursuant to notice dated

29.11.2017, the Assessment Year itself being more than half a

decade prior to impugned order, the writ petitioner contends that

if a personal hearing had been held, writ petitioner would have

been able to demonstrate with specificity and clarity about the

23 purchase bills and as to