TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from these notices similar notice were not only issued for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014 -15 but also for the Assessment Years 2009-10 2012-13 on 29.07.2016. The petitioner asked the first respondent to appoint the Joint Commissioner vide representation dated 06.09.2018 which was not resulted in any favourable orders. The provision of TNVAT Act, 2016 does not contemplate the appointment of an Arbitrator to look into correctness or otherwise of the revision notices issued for reversing the deemed assessment order. Therefore, there are no merits in the present writ petition. The petitioner should have filed a reply to the revision notices on merits and awaited for final orders. Instead, the petitioner resorted to dilatory tactics with request to appoint a Joint Commissioner. The case remitted back to the second respondent. The petitioner shall file reply if any to the revision notices dated 02.08.2018, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)Nos . 21894 &21895 of 2019 and WMP.(MD)Nos.18651 & 18653 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is therefore submitted that the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that without awaiting for reply on merits from the petitioner, the said impugned assessment orders were passed. It is submitted that if the second respondent was inclined to disallow the adjournment letter, the petitioner should have been put on notice before the impugned orders were passed. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proposal in the pre-revision notices are pursuant to the inspection carried out by the Officers from the Enforcement from 24.10.2014 to 27.10.2014 and that the proposals themselves were highly inflated and therefore, it is in this context, the petitioner had sent a representation to the Commissioner to appoint a Joint Commissioner as an Arbitrator to look into the issue. It is submitted that the petitioner was sharing the godown with its Parent concern, the Company called ''M/s.V.V.V. Sons Edible Oils Limited''. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged only in the manufacture of containers, which were supplied to M/s.V.V.V. Sons Edible Oils Limited. It is submitted that M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has acted on the basis of the directions of his higher authority in completing the assessments. We hold that the assessments are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the orders of assessment in both the matters are liable to be quashed and consequently, the orders of the Special Tribunal confirming the orders of assessment are also liable to be quashed. However, it is open to the assessing officer, viz., the first respondent herein, to pass orders of assessment afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Both the writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.'' 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this Court, as detailed below:- (i) Mahadayal Premchandra vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and others [MANU/SC/0128/1958 : AIR 1958 SC 667], wherein at Paragraph 19, it has been held as under:- ''19. We are really surprised at the manner in which the first respondent dealt with the matter of this assessment. It is clear that he did not exercise his own judgment in the matter a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is submitted that the petitioner also failed to appear for personal hearing before passing the impugned orders. On this score, these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Finally, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the question of appointing an Arbitrator to look into the issue would not arise, as there was no deviation as in the case of Madras Granites (P) Ltd. [supra]. It is submitted that in this case, the records were perused and based on the records, estimations were made in respect of delivery notes, which were not made available by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned orders have been passed. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance, it is for him to work out the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents . 14. The facts on record seems indicate that there was surprise inspection conducted at the petitioner's place of business and the petitioner's sister concern namely, M/s.V.V.V Edible Oils Limited on 24.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 following the D3 proposals issued by the Enforcement Wing and decide the issues in accordance with law. 18. An interim order came to be passed by this Court on 01.08.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.15388 of 2018. In the said proceedings, petitioner also prayed for stay of further proceedings in A.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2017 on the file of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Virudhunagar. These proceedings pertain to assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, on this background, the impugned order came to be passed. 19. The provision of TNVAT Act, 2016 does not contemplate the appointment of an Arbitrator to look into correctness or otherwise of the revision notices issued for reversing the deemed assessment order. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the present writ petition. The petitioner should have filed a reply to the revision notices on merits and awaited for final orders. Instead, the petitioner resorted to dilatory tactics with request to appoint a Joint Commissioner. It is noticed that the impugned order came to be passed without a reply to the respective Revision Notices dated 02.08.2018, I am inclined to quash the respective A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
