9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to look into the legality or otherwise of the reassessment proceeding and to complete the assessment. The petitioner was thereafter called for hearing in response to the revision notice. In the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an application and the same was pending before the Principal Joint Commissioner and the Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for transferring the case to a Joint Commissioner to examine the correctness/legality of the revision notice and therefore, requested the second respondent to await for the same. 3. It is submitted that despite the petitioner's petitions for transfer of the cases to the Joint Commissioner or any other higher officer to look into the issue arising out of the inspection by the Enforcement Directorate, the second respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 16.09.2019. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that under similar circumstances, the Commissioner has exercised power and passed administrative orders for transferring the cases to the Joint Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, in turn, has disposed the case. In this connection, a copy of the order dated 22.06.2013, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court Madras Granites (P) Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others [MANU/TN/2827/2002 : 2006 (146) STC 642 (Mad)], wherein at Paragraph 4, it has been held as under:- ''4. No doubt, the assessing officer issued preassessment notice including the notice for levy of penalty calling for objections from the dealer and after receiving reply from the dealer, completed the assessment on the basis of D-3 proposal forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement. We find from the records that in D-3 proposal, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, Salem, has not only determined the surplus turnover, but also determined the quantum of penalty that might be imposed on the dealer. Therefore, when the higher officer, viz., the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, has directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment on the basis of the proposal in D-3 form, we find that the assessing officer, who is lower in rank in the hierarchy of officers, is bound by the said direction, and the records also show that the assessing officer has not independently applied his mind, but adopte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of this Court in the case of Royal Insulation (P) Ltd. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer reported in 2005 (3) LW 582, to buttress the point that the requirement of deposit of 25% over and above would become illusory and therefore, the Division Bench of this Court had also recommended the State Government to take steps to issue ordinance to amend Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment reads as under:- ''8. Hence we recommend to the State Government to issue an ordinance forthwith amending Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and making a provision permitting waiver or stay by the appellate authority (in its discretion) of the pre-deposit amount in appropriate and genuine cases so that the assessees may not face hardship, and the alternative remedy of appeal may not become illusory.'' 10. It is submitted that despite the above said direction, no steps have been taken by the legislative assembly to amend the law. It is submitted that thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 replaced the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and now the respective GST Enactments are in force from 2017. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-12 were passed. For the Assessment year 2012-13 and Assessment Order dated 29.08.2018 was passed. The petitioner challenged the same before the second respondent under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. However, for the respective Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15, the impugned Assessment Orders both dated 16.9.2019 have been challenged in these writ petitions instead of filing Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 51 of TN VAT, 2006. 16. As far as the Assessment Year 2013-14 is concerned, the petitioner requested for appointment of a Joint Commissioner to arbitrate the legality or otherwise of the re-assessment notice dated 02.08.2018 issued to the petitioner. In the replies, the petitioner merely requested the second respondent to await for consideration of the representation dated 06.09.2018 of the petitioner before the first respondent and the same was reiterated in the reply to the notice dated 20.05.2019. It is thereafter the impugned order has been passed. 17. The petitioner asked the first respondent to appoint the Joint Commissioner vide representation dated 06.09.2018 which was not resulted in any favoura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
