TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it or direct the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment and/or pass fresh order in such manner as may be directed. Thus, power has been given to the 1st respondent to examine the issue without any inhibition of limitations prescribed under the Act where an assessee was unable to participate in the proceeding or appropriate order from an Assessing Officer - Though the impugned order of the 1strespondent adverts to be proceedings which was challenged before it, it fails to address the core issue before it. Since the petitioner did not get to participate in the hearing and an ex parte order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner deserves an opportunity of being heard - 2nd respondent is therefore directed to pass a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings for the year 1998- 1999 dated 18.1.2002 was served by affixture on 13.1.2002 and the final assessment order for the year 1999-2000 dated 18.1.2002 was served by affixture on 19.1.2002. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that they were not given sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders is not acceptable. Further, the applicants have not established that the orders passed in the impugned proceedings were against any provisions of TNGST Act and Rules. Since the applicants failed to produce their accounts for check and submit necessary documentary evidences for their claim of exemption, the assessing authority had rejected the claim of exemption and passed the best judgment orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without check of accounts, the department reserves its right to re-open the case and to tax any turn over if necessary in a later date. 4. Prior to passing the above Assessment Order dated 28.08.2000, the petitioner's unit was surveyed by the Officers of the Commercial Tax Department on 22.02.2000 and available records were seized. Meanwhile, the petitioner's partner Mr.R.Natarajan, who was the person-in-charge of the petitioner firm was arrested under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. 5. Thereafter, petitioner was released on 04.07.2000, pursuant to a conditional bail granted by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.479/2000 in Crime No.3/2000 In the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd respondent had treated the goods sold by the petitioner as feeds supplement classifiable under Entry No.13 of Part B to the First Schedule and therefore liable to tax. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Entry 13 of the Part B to the First Schedule applies to Poultry Feeds Supplement for the first time in the year 2001 fixing the rate at 2%. 10. The respondent have justified the impugned order stating that the orders are well reasoned and requires no interference. It is further stated that the petitioner had failed to co-operate in the assessment proceedings. When the impugned order were served on them by way of affixture, the petitioner ought to invoked appellate remedy. It is submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued on 26.12.2001 for the Assessment Years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 respectively and thereafter, two other revision notices were issued for the Assessment Years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. 14. The 1st respondent has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 with the observation that though there is no limitation prescribed under the aforesaid provision, the petitioner should have filed application within three years of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. 15. The very purpose of giving such wide power to the Special Committee constituted under the aforesaid provision is to pass appropriate orders when an assessee has no other remedy left and where orders have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers on merits within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state the 2nd respondent shall call upon the petitioner for a hearing. It is made clear that service of the notice on Mr.R.Natarajan (partner), M/s Indian Commercial Syndicate, No.47, GB Mayflower Roylae, Basyagarlu Road (East), Coimbatore 641 002, given in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition shall be sufficient service of the notice and if the petitioner fails to co-operate in the proceeding before the 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent has requested to pass orders based on the available material. 21. The 2nd respondent Assessing Officer or any other officer designated in the light of repeal of TNGST Act, 1959 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
