Tvl.Murugan Garments vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)
2021 Latest Caselaw 20206 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20206 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2021

Madras High Court

Tvl.Murugan Garments vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 1 October, 2021

                                                                                    W.P.No.21121 of 2021
                                                                              and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 01.10.2021

                                                          CORAM

                                       THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

                                                  W.P.No.21121 of 2021
                                                          and
                                                 W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

                      Tvl.Murugan Garments
                      Represented by its Proprietor
                      K.Ayyasamy
                      No.15/3, SNVS Layout 1st Street,
                      Kongu Main Road
                      Tirupur-7.                                                    ...Petitioner

                                                              -Vs.-

                      The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
                      Kongunagar Circle
                      Tirupur.                                                       ...Respondent

                                 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                      praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of
                      the respondent in TIN:33572441268/2010-2011 dated 27.08.2021 and
                      quash the same.
                                       For Petitioner     :      Mr.R.Senniappan
                                       For Respondent     :      Ms.Amirta Dinakaran
                                                                 Government Advocate



http://www.judis.nic.in   1/11
                                                                                  W.P.No.21121 of 2021
                                                                            and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021




                                                        ORDER

Captioned main writ petition has been filed assailing an 'order

dated 27.08.2021 bearing reference No.TIN:33572441268/2010-2011'

[hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience, clarity and

brevity] made by the sole respondent.

2. Though the impugned order does not mention the provision of

law under which it has been made, this Court is informed that the

impugned order has been made under Section 27 of 'Tamil Nadu Value

Added Tax Act, 2006, (Tamil Nadu Act No.32 of 2006)' [hereinafter

'TNVAT' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. To be noted,

Section 27 of TNVAT Act deals with assessment of escaped turnover and

wrong availment of 'Input Tax Credit' [ITC]. Proviso to sub-sections (1)

and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act make it clear that an order under

Sections 27(1) and 27(2) shall not be without giving the dealer a

reasonable opportunity to show cause against such an order. In the

instant case, a show cause notice [SCN] was issued on 11.03.2019, writ

http://www.judis.nic.in 2/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

petitioner responded requesting for some time vide communication dated

11.04.2019. Thereafter, another SCN dated 16.12.2020 was issued and

writ petitioner responded to the same vide cover letter dated 13.01.2021

annexing bulk of documents which according to learned counsel for writ

petitioner is inter-alia monthly returns which explained defects said to

have been noticed in SCN. Notwithstanding this reply, another notice

dated 23.03.2021 was issued by respondent and writ petitioner

responded vide communication dated 03.04.2021 referring to this SCN

and detailed response to the same together with annexures.

3. When the above three notices and responses stood, the

impugned order came to be passed and a scanned reproduction of the

impugned order is as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in 3/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

http://www.judis.nic.in 4/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

http://www.judis.nic.in 5/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

http://www.judis.nic.in 6/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

4. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that

the impugned order does not even refer to SCNs much less the detailed

response of writ petitioner and more importantly, it has not considered the

cause shown by writ petitioner.

5. Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, learned Revenue counsel accepts notice

on behalf of sole respondent. Learned counsel submits on instructions,

that going by records, SCNs that preceded the impugned order were in

fact issued, but in the considered view of this Court, this does not qualify

as an answer to impugned order being completely laconic and not

considering the cause shown by writ petitioner.

6. Interestingly and intriguingly, the provision under which the

impugned order has been made i.e., Section 27 of TNVAT Act talks about

'Best of its Judgment' for making re-assessment. This is all the more good

ground to say that reasons even should be given and in the light of

proviso to sub-sections(1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act, it is

imperative that the cause shown by writ petitioner is considered for re-

http://www.judis.nic.in 7/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

assessment/revision by adopting Best Judgment Methodology. It follows

as a sequitur that the reasons would therefore form the soul of a

revision/re-assessment order and how the objections were considered

should be set out and such articulations can be terse or short but it neither

be laconic nor bereft of reason (as in this case). To be noted, in the instant

case, there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the objections

were considered.

7. As already alluded to supra, order can be terse or epigrammatic,

but it can be neither laconic nor giving no reason at all. In any event,

there should have been some reference in the impugned order, qua cause

shown by writ petitioner dealer.

8. Therefore, captioned Writ Petition is disposed of, by making the

following order:

(a) The impugned order being order dated

27.08.2021 bearing reference

No.TIN:33572441268/2010-2011 is set aside solely on

the ground that the cause shown by writ petitioner has not

been considered and it does not give any reason

http://www.judis.nic.in 8/11 W.P.No.21121 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22389 of 2021

whatsoever for not accepting the dealer's position. To be

noted, the impugned order also imposes penalty under

Section 27(4) of TNVAT Act;

(b) As the impugned order is set aside on the

aforementioned short point, though obvious, it is made

clear that no view on merits of the matter has been

expressed in this order;

(c) The respondent shall de novo do the

re-assessment/revision under Section 27 of TNVAT Act,

by considering the cause shown by writ petitioner in

response to SCNs and make the order afresh as

expeditiously as the business of respondent would permit

and in any event, within six weeks from today i.e., on or

before 12.11.2021;