Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Andanother [(2007) 295 Itr 303

Thiru.G.Palanivelu Contractors,Periya Kadayampatti,Omalur (T.K.),Mettur Dam (DT). .. PetitionerVersus The Assistant Commissioner (CT),Omalur Assessment Circle,Omalur,Salem District. .. Respondent Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to callfor the records on the files of the respondent inTIN.33833243218/2012-13, dated 11.06.2015 and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Senniappan For Respondent : Mr.Manokaran Sundaram Additional Government Pleader Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is registered contractor of thePublic Works Department and who is registered dealer on the fileof the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu ValueAdded Tax Act, 2006, has filed this Writ Petition, challengingthe order of assessment for 2012-13. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Two grounds have been raised by the learned counselfor the petitioner. First is that the impugned order has beenpassed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Insupport of his contention, reliance has been placed on thedecision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the caseof V.Selladurai Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) andanother [(2007) 295 ITR 303]. 4. The second ground raised by the learned counsel forthe petitioner is that the petitioner had filed monthly returnsand also paid tax and after due verification, the previousincumbent, who was functioning as the Assistant Commissioner(CT), Omalur Assessment Circle, was satisfied with the returnsand issued certificates under Form S. The respondent erroneouslyobserved in the impugned order that no monthly returns have beenfiled and that the petitioner has not reported the turnoverliable to tax. 5. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has notbeen afforded an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated andas pointed out by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the abovereferred to decision, this Court is of the view that the mattershould be decided afresh after due opportunity to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, theimpugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back tothe respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent isdirected to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to thepetitioner. While doing so, the respondent shall verify as tothe correctness of the submissions made by the petitioner thatthey filed Return and paid taxes and that the officer concerned,having been satisfied with the same, had issued the certificateunder Form S. The respondent can call for the entire filesrelating to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordancewith law. The petitioner is at liberty to exercise their optionunder Section 6 of the said Act, which shall be considered onmerits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed. r n s ToThe Assistant Commissioner (CT),Omalur Assessment Circle,OmalurSalem District +1 cc to the Special Government Pleader Taxes sr.43251 W.P.No.31713 of 2015 &M.P.No.1 of 2015 aa16/08/2016