Tvl. Sri Sivsakthi Agency vs Assistant Commissioner (St)
2021 Latest Caselaw 20030 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20030 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Madras High Court

Tvl. Sri Sivsakthi Agency vs Assistant Commissioner (St) on 30 September, 2021

                                                                                W.P.No.21046 of 2021


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 30.09.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

                                               W.P.No.21046 of 2021
                                                       &
                                              WMP.No.22301 of 2021

                      Tvl. Sri Sivsakthi Agency
                      No.8, 1437, B, R.S.Puram
                      Pandian Nagar
                      Tirupur – 641 602
                      Represented by its
                      Proprietor Mr.Parameswaran Shanmugam               ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs
                      Assistant Commissioner (ST)
                      Anupparpalayam Circle
                      Tirupur - 641 601.                                  ...Respondent

                      Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                      issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent herein
                      leading to issuance of Demand Notice dated 07.10.2020 (vide TIN
                      No.3332306915/2010-11) and quash the same and pass other or further
                      order as it may deem fit under the proper circumstances of the case and
                      thus render justice.

                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.Sathiyanarayanan

                                  For Respondent      : Ms. Amirta Dinakaran
                                                        Government Advocate



http://www.judis.nic.in
                      1/6
                                                                                 W.P.No.21046 of 2021




                                                       ORDER

Mr.S.Sathiyanaraynan, learned counsel for the sole writ petitioner

is before me and the captioned matter is in the Admission Board.

2. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to a notice

dated 07.10.2020 bearing reference no. TIN 3332306915/2010-11

submits that the notice refers to proceedings of the sole respondent being

'proceedings dated 20.06.2014 bearing reference No. TIN

33322306915/2010-11' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of

convenience and clarity], but the same was never served on the writ

petitioner prior to impugned notice .

3. Learned counsel submits that post impugned notice, the

petitioner took up the matter with the respondent and the aforementioned

20.06.2014 proceedings of the respondent was furnished to the writ

petitioner. To be noted, this is annexed to the typed-set of papers.

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

on behalf of the lone respondent, with the consent of learned counsel on

both sides, main writ petition is taken up as the matter turns on a very

narrow compass. On instructions, learned Revenue counsel submits that

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.No.21046 of 2021

records of the respondent do not reveal that the aforementioned

proceedings of the respondent dated 20.06.2014 was not served on the

writ petitioner prior to the impugned notice. Be that as it may, learned

Revenue counsel, on instructions, submits that the impugned notice is

pursuant to proceedings under Section 22(4) of 'the Tamil Nadu Value

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

'TNVAT Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Proviso to Section

22(4) of TNVAT Act makes it statutorily imperative to give a reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner.

5. From the narrative thus far, it is clear that aforementioned

proviso to Section 22(4) has clearly been breached. Likewise, a notice

dated 22.05.2014 regarding levy of penalty is also clearly flawed as that

would not arise for proceedings under Section 22 (4) of TNVAT Act.

6. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main writ petition

is disposed of by making the following order:

(a) Impugned notice being notice dated 07.10.2020

bearing reference TIN No.3332306915/2010-11 is set

aside solely on the ground that a reasonable opportunity

of being heard i.e., personal hearing vide proviso to

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.No.21046 of 2021

Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act has not been provided to the

writ petitioner prior to the impugned notice;

(b) As a sequitur to the previous limb of this order,

though obvious it is made clear that this Court has not

expressed any view on the merits of the matter;

(c) As a further sequitur to the previous two limbs,

the respondent is directed to make assessment de novo

i.e., assessment adopting the best judgment method under

Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act after affording a reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner;

(d) By consent of both sides, personal hearing is

now fixed on 21.10.2021 (Thursday) at 3.00 PM in the

office of the respondent;

(e) Writ Petitioner undertakes to co-operate qua

personal hearing proceedings and submits that an

adjournment will not be sought and the proceedings will

not be delayed in any other manner;

(f) The respondent shall pass assessment orders

afresh within three weeks from the date of personal

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.No.21046 of 2021

hearing i.e. on or before the 11.11.2021.