Sri Kathaye Amman Agencies vs The Commercial Tax Officer

R. Subbiah, J.—Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

Both the Writ Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. In both the writ petitions, they have prayed for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in TIN 33483961550/2012-13 and TIN 33483961550/2013-14 and quash the orders, dated 25.08.2015 passed therein.

The petitioner is a trader in cement and a registered dealer. The said firm purchased cement from M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited, a registered dealer in the State of Tamil Nadu and pays tax at the appropriate rate on such purchases. The petitioner is entitled to avail Input Tax Credit of the amount of tax paid on such purchases while paying output tax in respect of the sales effected and also entitled to carry forward any excess ITC. The petitioner duly files its monthly returns and reports its purchases, tax paid on purchases, sales, ITC availed any carry forward balance of ITC. No defect in the returns filed by the petitioner has been pointed out by the respondent. Under Section 63-A was inserted in the TNVAT Act, 2006, whereby, every registered dealer whose total turnover exceeds Rs. 1 Crore has to file a report from its auditor in Form WW on or before nine months from the expiry of the relevant assessment year. While so, the respondent issued notice, dated 24.07.2015 for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The respondent alleged that the closing stock of the petitioner as per Form WW for 2012-2013 was Rs. 1,82,415/- and therefore, the carry forward balance of the Input Tax Credit on closing stock has to be Rs. 26,450/-, but the petitioner had shown carried forward input Tax credit as Rs. 2,64,181/-. Hence, the respondent proposed to reverse ITC to the extent of Rs. 2,37,731/- out of the ITC carried forward from 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 alleging excess claim by the petitioner and deducted the same from the eligible ITC for 2012-2013. Eventually, he demanded the difference amount of Rs. 2,37,73/- and proposed to reduce the same from the eligible Input Tax Credit from both the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The petitioner has already filed his objections dated, 04.08.2015 along with monthwise purchase and sales turnover and the quantum of tax paid on the purchases. In fact there was no dispute from the registered dealers and the petitioner is entitled to have input tax credit of the same. Inspite of above said fact, ut the respondent without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2015. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions.

The main grievance of the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is that the impugned order has been issued without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Had an opportunity of hearing been granted to the petitioner, they would have produced the relevant records as required by the petitioner and hence prayed for quashing of the impugned order in both the Writ Petitions.

The learned Government Advocate was put on notice on the above said aspect. He submitted that the order impugned in this Writ Petition is of revenue in nature and every effort should be made to protect the revenue of the Government and hence, he prayed that this Court shall sustain the impugned orders of the respondent.

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

From the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the main grievance of the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is that though all the accounts are properly maintained by the petitioner, the respondent without considering the same has passed the impugned orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner further that if at all the respondent wants to peruse those records, the petitioner is ready to produce the same before the respondent to substantiate their claim. On perusal of the records, the respondent can pass appropriate orders.

In view of the above-said submission, the impugned orders in both the Writ Petitions stand set aside and the petitioner is directed to produce all the available records to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receiving such documents, the respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, four weeks, thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition M.P.(MD). Nos. 1 & 1 of 2015 are closed.