Madras High Court
Thulasi Commimox vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 12 April, 2022
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2022.
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.9019 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.8822 of 2022
Thulasi Commimox
Rep. By its Proprietor
Mr.A.Thennarasu,
No.89, N S K Nagar, Salamedu
Villupuram-605 602. …. Petitioner
-Vs-
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Villupuram I Assessment Circle,
Integrated CT Buildings,
Villupuram-605 602. …. Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned proceedings of the
Respondent passed in TIN 33514683068/2011-12 dated 31.08.2016 (Certified copy
dated 24.02.2022) and consequential distraint order in Form No.I in 1A3/1481/2017
dated 27.01.2022 along with notice of demand prior to attachment of land in Form
No.4 issued under Section 25 of Revenue Recovery Act and quash the same as per the
law laid down by this Court in W.P.Nos.21741 to 21743 of 2015 vide order dated 20th
August 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Ravi Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj,
Additional Government Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned
proceedings of the Respondent passed in TIN 33514683068/2011-12, dated
31.08.2016 (Certified copy dated 24.02.2022) and consequential distraint order in
Form No.I in 1A3/1481/2017 dated 27.01.2022 along with notice of demand prior to
attachment of land in Form No.4 issued under Section 25 of Revenue Recovery Act
and quash the same as per the law laid down by this Court in W.P.Nos.21741 to 21743
of 2015 vide order dated 20th August 2015.
2. The petitioner was a dealer under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax
Act, 2006 (in short 'the TNVAT Act). For the period 2011-12, though the assessment
was completed under Section 22(2) of the said Act, subsequently the Revenue wanted
to scrutinize the same for passing the revised order under Section 22(3) of the Act or
order under best judgment basis under Section 22(4) of the Act.
3. In this regard, though it is the case of the Revenue that, notice has been
issued to the petitioner dealer and the petitioner dealer has not given any reply, it is
the case of the petitioner counsel that, no notice had been served on the petitioner on
the permanent address of the petitioner, because in the year 2014 itself, the petitioner
closed the business and at the time of closing the business, he had declared so, that
his permanent address is something different, not the one where he conducted the
business and having taken note of the same, the Revenue also cancelled the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
registration made under the said Act.
4. Despite these factors, according to the petitioner counsel, the order of
assessment under Section 22(4) read with Section 27(1) and 27(2) of the Act since
has been passed on 31.08.2016 and the certified copy of the same has been served to
the petitioner on 27.01.2022, challenging the same on the ground that, no notice has
been served prior to the order and also challenging the consequent distraint
proceedings issued in this regard, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.
5. Heard Mr.P.V.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who would
submit that, when the business was closed, pursuant to which, the registration itself
was cancelled and the permanent address of the petitioner having been revealed,
taking note of the same, the Revenue if at all wants to reopen it or to revise it, they
could have issued notice to the permanent address of the petitioner, however, no such
notice has been issued including the assessment order of the year 2016, only the
distraint proceedings, which is also impugned herein, since has been issued to the
permanent address of the petitioner, they have challenged both proceedings now, on
the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Heard Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent Revenue, who would submit that, if that is the grievance of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
petitioner that, the notice has not been served on the permanent address of the
petitioner, because he has closed the business in the year 2014, the same could have
been revealed by the petitioner and if that permanent address had been made known
to the Revenue, certainly, the notice would have been dispatched to that address also
and here in this case, notice though had been sent to the petitioner to the registered
address of the business premises, the same was since not responded, the Revenue
had no other option except to proceed with the assessment and accordingly
completed the assessment in the year 2016 and that order now is under challenge
only after receipt of distraint proceedings, thereby there is a delay and latches on the
part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, instead of going before the Appellate
Authority, therefore, on that ground, this writ petition is liable to be rejected.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
8. It is the fact remains that, the petitioner closed the business in the year
2014, pursuant to which, the registration itself was cancelled by the Revenue. At the
time of cancellation of registration, the permanent address of the petitioner at
Pondicherry seems to have been revealed and to that address only, now the
consequential impugned distraint proceedings have been served.
9. When that being served, it can be presumed that, the permanent address of
the petitioner is made known to the respondent Revenue, despite that, since notice
had not been served on the permanent address, the plea raised by the petitioner side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
that, no notice have been served on the petitioner or received by them to the known
address is to be accepted.
10. When that being so, this Court have no hesitation to hold that, the
impugned order of assessment, dated 31.08.2016 and the consequential distraint
proceedings issued may not stand in the legal scrutiny and therefore, this Court is
inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following order:
● That the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted
back to the respondent for reconsideration.
● While reconsidering the same, the impugned assessment order,
dated 31.08.2016 shall be treated as a show cause notice by the
petitioner and in response to the same, it is open to the petitioner
to give the response within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and after receipt of such reply, if any
personal hearing is sought for by the petitioner in the said reply,
the same shall also be given by the Revenue within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
● After giving an opportunity of personal hearing, it is open to the
Revenue to proceed with the assessment under Section 22(3) and
22(4) as well as Section 27 of the Act on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
11. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is ordered
accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Anu/tsvn
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Villupuram I Assessment Circle,
Integrated CT Buildings,
Villupuram-605 602.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9019 of 2022
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Anu
W.P.No. 9019 of 2022
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
