2025:MHC:2807 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICEANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.A.No.1008 of 2022 and C.M.P.No. 6397 of 2022 M/s.Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Rep. by its Resolution Professional, Mr.Krishnasamy Vasudevan Reg.No.IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00155/2017-18/10324 No.5, 2^nd Link Street, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

Now at No.8/33, Padmavathiyaar Road, Jeypore Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. .. Appellant vs The Commercial Tax Officer Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai. .. Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.5977 of 2015.

For Appellant : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (Tax)

JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

The present appeal is filed assailing order dated 11.08.2021, wherein the appellant has challenged an order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (‘Act’), dated 11.02.2015, qua assessment year 2013 -14. The writ petition come to be dismissed relegating the appellant to statutory remedy by way of appeal.

2. We have heard Ms.Aparna, who appears for the appellant. Prior to completion of assessment, the authority had issued notice dated 07.11.2014 calling for an explanation in regard to a claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed under invoice dated 10^th March, 2014. The officer refers therein to the fact that the registration of the selling dealer had been cancelled as on 21.02.2014.

3. The appellant submitted objections to the effect that though the effective date of cancellation of the registration was 24.02.2014, which was prior to the date of transaction i.e., 10.04.2014, the fact of cancellation was not known to the appellant who should therefore not be penalised for the same.

4. The appellant was heard in-person, post which, the impugned order of assessment came to be passed, wherein the assessing authority confirms the proposal for reversal of ITC. The officer holds that the burden of proof under Section 17 of the Act had not been discharged by the appellant, and neither movement of goods nor mode of payment proven.

5.The primary argument of the appellant is that the order of assessment proceeds on a premise that was never put to the appellant, as according to the appellant, the only question raised by the officer in the pre-assessment notice related to the cancellation of registration of the selling dealer.

6. Mr.Prashanth, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent would, however disagree, pointing out that in notice dated 07.11.2014, the assessing authority has clearly alleged that the transaction in question was with a bill trader and that the appellant had not discharged the burden under Section 17 of the Act.

7.He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited¹ and a decision of this Court in Sahyadri Industries Limited V. State of Tamil Nadu² Incidentally, Mrs.Aparna would point out that the benefit of the aforesaid two decisions were unavailable to the assessee at the relevant point in time.

8. We heard both the learned counsel and perused the material papers as well as the cases relied upon.

9. We are called upon to examine whether the order of assessment dated 11.02.2015 is contrary to the provisions of natural justice, proceeding on a premise that had not been put to the assessee in the show cause notice. For this purpose, we turn to show cause notice dated 07.11.2014. The assessing authority has verified the monthly return for the month of March, 2014 and noticed that the dealer had made a purchase from one Ocean Impex, whose registration had been cancelled on 21.02.2014.

10.The proposal of the officer is to reverse the claim of ITC on the premise that said Ocean Impex is a ‘bill trader’. He calls for objections to the proposal