Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1047 (MAD)

MRF LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER III

2001-09-10

A.SUBBULAKSHMY, R.JAYASIMHA BABU

body2001
ORDER R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. - Section 16(1)(a), as also section 16(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 empower the "assessing authority" to exercise the powers referred to therein. It is submitted by counsel that the assessing authority, as also the enforcement authority have both claimed jurisdiction to bring to tax the alleged escaped turnover. The enforcement wing had issued the show cause notice earlier. After proceedings before that authority stayed by reason of legal proceedings instituted by the petitioner, the regular assessing authority, who is of a higher rank, issued a show cause notice again seeking to bring to tax the escaped turnover for the same period. A Division Bench of this Court held in the petitions filed by the assessee that if the assessment is to be revised that should properly be done by an officer who is of a rank not lesser than that of the original assessing authority, but that such an inhibition would not be there, if it is only a matter of bringing to tax the escaped turnover. After that judgment was delivered the assessing authority, who is of the rank of Assistant Commissioner made an order cancelling the notice that had been issued by the enforcing authority, that officer being lesser in rank to the original assessing authority. Petitioner's plea that the original assessing authority should not deal with the question of escaped turnover was uniformly rejected by the authorities as also by the Tribunal. So far as the assessee is concerned, it makes no differences as to the nature of the explanation it is required to offer pursuant to the notice issued under section 16(1)(a) of this Act. Whether the assessee is required to answer the notice issued by the enforcement authority, or the assessing authority makes little difference. The assessee will have the benefit of the adjudication by a senior and presumably more experienced officer when the original assessing authority deals with the matter rather than an officer of lesser rank in the enforcement authority dealing with the matter. Moreover, the assessee has no vested right in deciding as to who should take the action. It is always open to the assessee to show the lack of justification for the action and also to contest the findings of the authority as and when given after hearing the affected parties. Moreover, the assessee has no vested right in deciding as to who should take the action. It is always open to the assessee to show the lack of justification for the action and also to contest the findings of the authority as and when given after hearing the affected parties. The notice impugned before the authorities being admittedly one given by the assessing authority referred to in section 16(1)(a) of the Act, the notice was perfectly valid and within the jurisdiction of the authority. The Tribunal was right in declining to interfere though the reasons given by it for not interfering are not reasons which we can approve of. Counsel submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the assessee to file its objections to the notice, as that had not been done so far. Four weeks' time from today is granted to the assessee to file its objections before the authority. The authority shall, thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Petitions disposed of accordingly.