Tvl. Sendamarai Steels vs The Commercial Tax Officer

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner is an Assessee under the TamilNadu General Sales Act, 1959 and also under the Central Sales Tax

Act, 1959. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 15359 of2011 relates to the assessment year 2001-2002; the writpetition in W.P. No. 15360 of 2011

relates to the assessmentyear 2002-2003 and the writ petition in W.P. No. 15361 of2011 relates to the assessment year 2003-2004. In all

theseyears, the Petitioner was assessed u/s 12 of theTamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 and based on theassessment the Petitioner also has paid

taxes. TheRespondent sought to exercise its power of revision ofassessment for those years u/s 16(1) of the TamilNadu General Sales Act, 1959

and a notice was issued underSection 16(1) for revising the assessment and the Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why revisedassessment

should not be made. The Petitioner, whilegiving reply, sought for personal hearing. Without givingpersonal hearing, the impugned order dated

29.3.2011 waspassed separately for all these years u/s 16(1)(a) revising the assessment. The Petitioner hasfiled the present writ petitions to quash

those orders,without availing appellate remedy on the ground that theRespondent ought to have given personal hearing in view of the judgment of

this Court in SRC PROJECT PVT. LTD. v.C.C.T. & C.T.O. (2008-09 (14) TNCTJ).

With the consent of both parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

No. counter is filed by the Respondent andlearned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) has opposed thewrit petition and sought for dismissal

of the writ petitionbased on the instructions from the Respondent.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitsthat the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in SRCPROJECT PVT. LTD. v. C.C.T. &

C.T.O. (2008-09 (14) TNCTJ)squarely applies to the facts of these cases and therefore,the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned Special GovernmentPleader (Taxes) submits that the said judgment was renderedbased on the Circular of the

Respondent providing forpersonal hearing whenever revisional power is exercised u/s 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act,1959.

Therefore, this judgment could not be applied.

I have considered the submissions on either side. In my view learned Special Government Pleader iscorrect in his submissions that the judgment

of the Division Bench should be understood in the context of theCircular of the Respondent providing for personal hearing,as Otherwise, the

Division Bench would not have renderedsuch a findings. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act usesthe wordings ""reasonable opportunity to

show cause"" incertain contingencies and ""reasonable opportunity of beingheard"" in certain contingencies. Wherever the statute hasused the

wordings ""reasonable opportunity of being heard"",then the Department is bound to give an opportunity ofpersonal hearing. However, Section

16(1)(a) does not usethe wordings ""reasonable opportunity of being heard"", butonly uses the wordings ""reasonable opportunity to show-cause"".

However, the Respondent himself issued theCircular which provides for personal hearing whileexercising revisional power u/s 16(1) of the

T.N.G.S.T.Act and the said Circular applies to the order ofassessment concerned in these writ petitions. Hence,judgment of the Division Bench

squarely applies to thefacts of these cases. Therefore, for not providing anopportunity of personal hearing, the impugned orders areliable to be

quashed and accordingly the same are quashed.The writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent to pass orders

afresh u/s 16(1)(a) of the T.N.G.S.T.Act after providing anopportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, withina period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of a copyof this order. Consequently, connected miscall aneouspetitions are closed. No. costs.