Oad<Br>Tirupur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) And Another, (2007) 295 Itr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.13239 of 2015 Tvl.Essa Garmentsrepresented by its ProprietorMr.S.SadiqaliNo.44(2), 45(2), Venkatesaiya ColonyKangeyam RoadTirupur..Petitioner -vs-The Commercial Tax OfficerBazaar CircleTirupur..Respondent Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for therecords on the files of the respondent in CST No.973968/2012-13dated 16.2.2015 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction andauthority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice. For Petitioner::Mr.R.SenniappanFor Respondent::Mr.A.N.R.Jaya PrathapGovernment Advocate ORDER This writ petition has been filed against the cryptic orderpassed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bazaar Circle, Tirupur on thesole ground that the respondent, violating the principles of naturaljustice, without giving any notice whatsoever, has passed theimpugned order, finally assessing the total and taxable turnover atRs.81,26,22,932.00 for the year 2012-13 under the Central Sales TaxAct, 1956 and demanded tax at Rs.15,66,596/- after adjusting theinput tax credit. It is also the further claim of the petitionerthat when it is a settled law that if the order of rectificationenhances the tax demand over and above the original order, theauthority has to give notice in accordance with Section 84 of theTamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 to the affected dealer. Thishas been reiterated by this Court in the judgment in V.Selladurai v.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) and another, (2007) 295 ITR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 303. When the petitioner was originally assessed under the CentralSales Tax Act for the year 2012-13 on 30.1.2015 taking the input taxcredit to the extent of Rs.38,55,504.00, the impugned order reversingthe input tax credit to the tune of nearly Rs.15 lakhs without givingany notice or opportunity to the petitioner is liable to be setaside. 2. Mr.A.N.R.Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate takesnotice on behalf of the respondent. 3. A perusal of the five line impugned order does not whisperabout the issuance of notice whatsoever to the petitioner. Thelearned Government Advocate for the respondent was unable to replyliterally, as the impugned order does not indicate the issuance ofany notice. Therefore the impugned order, which has been passed inviolation of the Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Actmandating an opportunity of personal hearing, is set aside and thematter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking orderafter giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 isclosed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /true copy/ ssTo Sub-Assistant Registrar The Commercial Tax OfficerBazaar CircleTirupur +1 CC to Mr.R.Senniappan Advocate. SR.NO. 24851+1 CC to the Special Govt Pleader Taxes. SR.NO. 24153