WP(MD)Nos.11376, 11384 and 11410 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 20.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.11376, 11384 and 11410 of 2022

&

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8094, 8098 and 8113 of 2022

M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited,

Rep. by its Director, Shri S.Shanmuganathan,

33, Agraharam Road,

Ramanathapuram,

Tamil Nadu – 623 501.

.. Petitioner in all the W.Ps.

Versus

State Tax Officer

Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle,

KTM Complex, Salai Street,

Ramanathapuram – 623 501.

.. Respondent in all the W.Ps.

Prayer in all the W.Ps.:- Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

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

to call for the entire records relating to order dated 31.01.2022,

bearing

Assessment

Nos.33AAQCA6068B1ZR/2020-21,

33AAQCA6068B1ZR/2019-20 and 33AAQCA6068B1ZR/2021-22 respectively,

passed by the respondent and quash the same holding the order as

unlawful and improper.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.L.S.Karthikeyan

in all the W.Ps.

for Mr.J.Shankarram

For Respondent

:

Mr.P.Subbaraj

in all the W.Ps.

Special Government Pleader

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions challenging the

impugned assessment orders for the following assessment years.

Sl

.

No

.

Writ Petition No.

Assessmen

t year

Impugned

order date

Total Liability

1

W.P.(MD)

No.11376/2022

2020-2021 31.01.2022

Rs.2,06,48,214/-

2

W.P.(MD)

No.11384/2022

2019-2020 31.01.2022

Rs.2,46,59,465/-

3

W.P.(MD)

No.11410/2022

2021-2022 31.01.2022

Rs.4,46,77,601/-

2.The background of the case is that the petitioner was engaged

in trading of textiles and garments and they were also having

1/6

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

WP(MD)Nos.11376, 11384 and 11410 of 2022

showrooms in Kumbakonam and Thanjavur. The partnership firms were

dissolved and the petitioner 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 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, 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

re