TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramanathan For the Respondent : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamali ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 29.09.2006. Identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Rajaganapathi Traders vs. CTO, Salem in W.P.Nos.45799 of 2006 and 45800 of 2006 and allowed the writ petitions by order dated 06.10.2017. The operative portion of the order reads as follows. Heard Mr.S.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner in these writ petitions has been challenged the order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expressed his inability to summon the concerned seller at Bangalore, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, in O.P.Nos.1403 and 1404 of 2003 in which an order came to be passed on 09.02.2004, holding that the respondent should invoke the powers vested in him under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu General Tax Act to summon the seller, namely, one Tvl.KLN Agro Tech (P) Ltd., Bangalore, and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them as directed by the appellate authority and in accordance with law. 2. Section-54 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act discloses that the assessing authority is vested with all the powers conferred on a Court by the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive except to pass orders based on the available materials on hand. The respondent failed to realise that in the event of such helplessness being recorded by the respondent, at best, he could not have relied upon any of the materials which were relatable to the said dealer for the purpose of determining the tax liability on the petitioner. In other words, in the absence of the concerned dealer being examined, it would not be proper for the respondent to rely on those materials to fasten the liability on the petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, there is not other go except to set aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions and direct the respondent to hold the proceedings afresh, exercising all the powers that are vested in him u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the dealer in Karnataka and it is stated in the written instructions given to the learned Special Government Pleader vide communication dated 16.02.2007, six summons were issued to the dealer, but the dealer from Karnataka did not appear. 6.At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that this is the reason why the Court specifically observed that the respondent should exercise all the powers conferred on it under Section 54 of the TNGST Act. If the respondent is unable to produce the other end dealer (Karnataka dealer), the question of using the materials collected from Karnataka against the petitioner does not arise, as this has been specifically prohibited in the orders passed by this Court dated 01.02.2005 (supra). 7.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
