Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3068 (MAD)

LANSON CARS (P. ) LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOYAMBEDU ASST. CIRCLE, MADHURAVOYAL, CHENNAI.

2008-08-22

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2008
ORDER S. NAGAMUTHU, J. - By consent of both parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since common questions are involved in all these four writ petitions, this common order is passed. The petitioner in all these four writ petitions, has challenged the final assessment orders passed by the respondent under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Though several grounds have been raised in these writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would focus his argument mainly on the ground that the form F submitted by the petitioner in these petitions had been rejected by the respondent while passing final orders, as the forms were found defective, in the sense, that some columns remain unfilled. The learned counsel would submit that in the pre-assessment notice, all these defects were not brought to the notice of the petitioner and form III also was not returned to the petitioner, to enable him to rectify the defects and to re-submit the same. Without adopting such procedure, the respondent has simply rejected form F on the ground that they are defective. The learned counsel would submit that similar orders were challenged before this court in a number of writ petitions, and this court has quashed such orders. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 21380 of 2004, decided on July 26, 2004 (Furris Herbo Minerals rep. by K. S. Vasu v. Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar II Assessment Circle, Chennai 29). In the said writ petition, a similar final assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was challenged on the ground that in the pre-assessment notice, the defects in respect of form F were not mentioned and further the defective form F was not returned to the party to enable him to rectify the defects and to re-submit the same. Accepting the said contention, this court allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of the order runs thus : "In the light of the materials noticed above, I am of the opinion that the assessing officer had committed an error in not returning the defective declarations found by him in the revised pre-assessment notice to the petitioner which would enable the assessee to file correct declarations and claim for a concessional levy. On the above conclusion, I am inclined to pass the following order while quashing the impugned order and allowing the writ petition : The respondent is directed to return the declarations so filed by the assessee and found to be defective by the assessing officer in his revised pre-assessment notice within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order; from the date the assessee is served with the defective declarations, the assessee will have 21 days time to file correct declarations, if any. Thereafter the assessing officer is at liberty to take a decision on the materials available on record and the materials to be placed by the assessee as indicated above and take a decision thereon." The facts of that case are akin to the facts of the present case. In all these cases, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the final assessment order, it is seen that all form Fs submitted by the petitioner have been rejected since they were defective, in the sense, there were certain columns left unfilled. As held by this court to afford fair opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent either should have brought that to the notice of the petitioner by incorporating them in the pre-assessment notices, pointing out the defects, in which case, the petitioner would have rectified the same or the respondent should have returned the forms, so as to enable the petitioner, to rectify the mistakes and to re-submit the same. The respondent has not adopted either course. Thus in my considered opinion, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice and also the statutory provisions. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the assessment orders impugned in all these writ petitions are liable to be quashed. In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned final assessment orders are quashed. The matters are remanded to the respondent with a direction to return the defective form F to the respective petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned final assessment orders are quashed. The matters are remanded to the respondent with a direction to return the defective form F to the respective petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such forms, the petitioner in these petitions is directed to re-submit the same after rectifying the defects, along with necessary documents and further explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter and the respondent is further directed to hold proper enquiry and pass final orders in all the matters within a further period of four weeks. The respondent shall independently consider the issues involved in the matter and pass orders without getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.