TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, the writ petition is allowed. - W.P. (MD). No. 6783 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2010 - MANIKUMAR S. J. , J. ORDER:- S. MANIKUMAR J. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari, to quash the order of the Special Committee (Commercial Taxes), Chennai, the second respondent herein dated May 21, 2008 by which the second respondent has rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Facts of the case are as follows: According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a manufacturer of M.S. Hex Bolts and an assessee on the file of the first respondent in TNGST No. 4881024. On March 23, 2005, the enforcement wing inspected the petitioner s industry and certain stock differences were recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed by the petitioner to pre-assessment notice dated April 10, 2006 is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the petitioner-industry is maintaining correct records and there was no stock variation in bolts, wire and rods and scraps, as alleged by the first respondent, at the time of inspection by the enforcement wing. He further submitted that the first respondent has levied penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 which is arbitrary and unlawful in nature. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, while passing an order under section 16D of the TNGST Act, without considering the real facts, the second respondent has simply rejected the application stating that the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for personal service, the petitioner has refused to receive it, hence, the order was served by affixture and on October 11, 2006, copy of the order was also sent by a registered post. According to him, the enforcement wing of the Commercial Tax Department had inspected the petitioner s business on May 23, 2005. During the course of inspection, they have found that the day book has not been maintained from April 1, 2004 to March 23, 2005 which was also admitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that as per section 40 of the TNGST Act and rule 29 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 the petitioner has to keep and maintain up-to-date, true and correct account showing full and complete particulars of his business and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner sought for one month time on May 22, 2006 which was also granted and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the petition under section 16D of the Act has been rejected. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire materials available on record. Section 16D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, speaks about the constitution of Special Committee and its powers. As per subsection (2) of section 16D of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Special Committee, may of its own motion or on application, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply and acknowledged by the assessing officer, the Special Committee in its order has recorded as follows: There is no reply filed by the dealer to the pre-assessment notice. The assessment is made based on the D3 proposals of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II, Central Enforcement Wing, Madurai. The pre-assessment notice was served on September 9, 2006 and the dealers sought one month time on May 22, 2006 which was granted. No reply has been filed even after the lapse of one month s time, i.e., June 28, 2006. Therefore, the assessing officer passed orders on September 25, 2006 and sent by RPAD on October 11, 2006. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the petition is rejected. As stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
