Shree Associates vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Tallakulam Assessment Circle

R. Subbiah, J.—The writ petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in CST No. 805361/2012-2013 and quash the proceedings dated 15.07.2015, as it is unlawful and in violation of the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to grant an opportunity for fresh adjudication of the matter.

The petitioner is a dealer in Coffee & Coffee seed for the assessment year 2012-2013. He has been originally assessed under self assessment scheme as per Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with 22(2) of the TNVAT Act. Whileso, on 05.06.2015, the respondent has issued a notice proposing to assess the estimated sales suppressions and levy of penalty under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with 27 of the TNVAT Act. On verification of the checkpost movement register and monthly return of April 2012, it is found that the sale of apparatus for making Coffee-Espresso for the value of Rs. 16,11,600/- has not been reported. In the notice dated 05.06.2015, the buyer''s name, TIN No. and Bill No. etc have been mentioned as below:

Hence, the petitioner replied in his letter dated 15.06.2015 stating that the above transaction is not pertaining to his business and no such purchase or sale has been effected to M/s. Caleo Company, Chikamagalur, Andhra Pradesh and thereby requested to drop the proposal for revision of assessment. But, the said reply was rejected and now, the impugned order has been passed to assess the estimated sales suppression and levy of penalty stating that the sale made to one another M/s. Caheo Company, Chikmagalur, Karnataka has not been reported based on verification of checkpost movement as per departmental website.

Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that penalty has been made under Section 27(3)(c) of TNVAT Act, without any findings and establishment of willful non-disclosure of taxable turnover liable to be assessed. While confirming the assessment in the impugned order on different transaction, the petitioner has not been given any show-cause. He has been totally denied opportunity for adjudication of the alleged transaction being treated as sales suppression.

It is the main contention of the petitioner that in the notice, dated 05.06.2015, the buyer''s name, TIN number and place of business are different. Further, the transaction mentioned in the notice is not pertaining to the company of the petitioner. Similarly, the order has been passed by referring to another company namely Caheo Company, Chickmagalur, Karnataka. It is also the contention of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing.

Heard the submissions made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 may be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 is set aside and the respondent is directed to furnish the correct particulars and also other necessary documents namely the Chek-Post Register and Bill copies to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On furnishing such particulars, the respondent is also directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition M.P. (M.D.). No. 1 of 2015 is closed.