The Commercial Tax Officer,Attur (Rural) Assessment Circle,Attur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Osd) And Another) And 1995 (8) M.t.c.r. 55 (M/S. Rajam Offsetprinters, Madras – 1 V. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mannadyeast As

&M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 Hotel Sri Vinayaga,Represented by its Proprietrix, Tmt. P.Jothi,No.55-A Salem Main Road,Vinayagapuram Post, Attur Taluk,Salem District... Petitioner in all W.Ps. The Commercial Tax Officer,Attur (Rural) Assessment Circle,Attur... Respondent in all W.Ps. Prayer:- Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, seeking for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari tocall for the records on the file of the respondent in TINNo.33883262154/2012-13; 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively dated03.08.2015, and quash the same as being contrary to theprinciples of natural justice and that of the principles laiddown by this Court in the judgment reported in (2007) 295 ITR303 (Mad) (V.Selladurai v. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD) and another) and 1995 (8) M.T.C.R. 55 (M/s. Rajam OffsetPrinters, Madras – 1 v. The Commercial Tax Officer, MannadyEast Assessment Circle, Madras – 1). Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader, appearing for the respondents, in all thewrit petitions. By consent of the learned counsel for bothsides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the filehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/of the respondent, has challenged the orders of assessment, dated 03.08.2015, which are in fact revisions of assessmentunder Section 22 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 (hereinafter will be referred to as “the Act”). Theimpugned orders have been challenged only on the ground thatthey are in violation of principles of natural justice, as anopportunity of personal hearing was not granted. In supportof the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitionerplaced reliance on the decisions reported in 1995 (8) M.T.C.R55 (M/s. Rajam Offset Printers, Madras – 1 v. The CTO, Mannady(East) Assessment Circle, Madras – 1), (2006) 146 STC 642(Madras Granites (P) Ltd. v. CTO, Arisipalayam Circle, Salemand another) and (2007) 295 ITR 303 (Mad.) (V.Selladurai v.Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) and another). 3. Though the respondent has been served, no counteraffidavit has been filed. 4. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear thatthey are passed under Section 22 (4) of the Act. If that bethe case, then the opportunity of personal hearing should havebeen granted and it is mandatory too. Failure to do sorenders the impugned proceedings as bad in law. 5. In the light of the same, the impugned orders call forinterference. Accordingly,the petitioner is directed to treatthe impugned proceedings as show cause notices, and submittheir objection(s) to the same, raising all the factual andlegal contentions, within a period of two weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. On such objection(s) beingfiled, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personalhearing to the petitioner and re-do the assessments inaccordance with law. The writ petition is disposed ofaccordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs areclosed. Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// srkTo The Commercial Tax Officer,Attur (Rural) Assessment Circle, Attur. GR(CO)https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/CA(30/11/2016)