Judgment 1. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard Mr. C. Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. What is challenged in this Writ Petition is the notice, dated 21.1.2013 in TIN No.33210940197/2011-2012 issued by the first respondent, informing that Input Tax Credit is eligible only for the purchasers from the registered dealers as per Section 19 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for short, 'the TNVAT Act'), thereby calling upon the petitioner to remit the tax of Rs.43,14,452/-immediately and if the petitioner has objections on the defects noticed, they may furnish the details along with documentary evidence and connected records within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which, appropriate action would be initiated as per law, seeking to quash the same. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacturing and selling locally and also exporting machinery to the other countries. The petitioner-Company has registered the business activities under the TNVAT Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') and the petitioner's sales tax registration number is TIN No.33210940197 and they are filing monthly returns and paying tax promptly every month before the respondents. For the year 2009-2010, the petitioner purchased iron tubes from another registered dealer Tvl. Kings Iron Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-600 001 (TIN No.33470061234) as per three sales invoice Nos.198, dated 18.3.2010, 192, dated 17.3.2010 and 205, dated 19.3.2010 and the total value of purchases for the above three purchase bills works out to Rs.10,73,66,617/-and utilised the goods in manufacturing of machinery and exported the machinery to other countries. The petitioner accounted for the above three purchases in the monthly returns in Form I in Annexure I, showing local purchases in the State and claimed Input Tax Credit for the taxes paid in the State for such local purchases. 5. While so, the petitioner subsequently claimed refund of Input Taxes paid in the State for the goods purchased for manufacturing of machinery in the State, as the machinery so manufactured is exported to other countries as per Section 5 of the CST Act. 5. While so, the petitioner subsequently claimed refund of Input Taxes paid in the State for the goods purchased for manufacturing of machinery in the State, as the machinery so manufactured is exported to other countries as per Section 5 of the CST Act. The second respondent issued refund of Input Taxes paid after getting confirmation from the third respondent that the seller M/s. Kings Iron Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-600 001, are alive and they have paid the taxes due for their sales in the month of March 2010. Subsequently, after 2011, the sales tax registration of the above seller M/s. Kings Iron Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-600 001, was cancelled retrospectively from 5.1.2010 by the third respondent and the second respondent has confirmed the sales tax registration and payment of tax by the seller M/s. Kings Iron Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chennai from the third respondent in January 2011 and then issued the refund of amount of corresponding Input Tax Credit to the petitioner, but the third respondent cancelled the sales tax registration of the said seller from 5.1.2010 retrospectively. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent issued the notice by rejecting the sales made by the seller to the petitioner during March 2010 and the third respondent has given the date of cancellation of registration of the seller as 5.1.2010. The Input Tax Credit available for the petitioner in respect of the purchases, was disallowed by the first respondent because of the retrospective cancellation of their sales tax registration. The respondents have noted deemed cancellation of seller with effect from 5.1.2010, whereas the seller has not actually stopped their business on that date, but did business till March 2010. The seller filed monthly returns every month and paid taxes every month till March 2010 and for the month of March 2010, the seller M/s. Kings Iron Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-600 001 paid tax to the Sales Tax Department at the rate of Rs.86,902/- and reported the sales in Annexure II for that month. When the seller filed monthly returns and paid taxes to the Department under the TNVAT Act, the buyer is entitled to claim such taxes paid while purchase of goods as Input Tax. 7. When the seller filed monthly returns and paid taxes to the Department under the TNVAT Act, the buyer is entitled to claim such taxes paid while purchase of goods as Input Tax. 7. Also the petitioner alleges that the seller filed monthly returns and paid taxes in their assessment circle even after the dates noted as deemed cancellation by the third respondent till March 2010 and hence, when the taxes are paid by the seller to the Department, the buyer is entitled to claim such taxes collected by the seller from the petitioner. VAT tax = Output Tax – Input Tax, i.e. the difference of taxes paid on purchases and taxes to be paid on the sales, is the VAT tax payable. Such retrospective date of cancellation proceedings of registration of the seller alone is to be taken to shift the tax burden on the buyer and not any earlier dates. The first respondent has taken earlier date 5.1.2010 as cancellation date and not the actual date of cancellation of registration of the seller. The mistake committed by the third respondent makes the petitioner to pay more taxes, as the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit for the purchases effected in the period in March 2010, is prior to the date of actual cancellation of registration of the seller. 8. The impugned notice is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the first respondent not being the assessing authority, has no authority to issue the impugned notice demanding tax and as per Section 2(5) of the TNVAT Act, only the assessing authority is entitled to levy and collect any tax. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, by relying on the decision of this Court reported in 2009 (19) VST 366 (Mad) (Heinz India Private Limited Vs. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, by relying on the decision of this Court reported in 2009 (19) VST 366 (Mad) (Heinz India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), submitted that this Court took a view that the petitioner therein has got every right to place all the material evidence before the competent authority to prove their claim by filing objections and though the petitioner therein claims that they have sufficient evidence to prove their claim, the prayer in the Writ Petition cannot be answered at that stage, as the said Writ Petition was not maintainable in the absence of any objection filed by the petitioner therein and this Court accordingly disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioner therein to approach the competent assessing authority and contest the matter by filing objections, agitating all the issues contended before this Court within a time limit and on receipt of such objections, the assessing authority was directed to consider the same for the assessment year 2007-2008 therein under Section 22 of the TNVAT Act and pass final assessment orders in accordance with law within a time limit. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 11. From the facts pleaded, it is seen that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company manufacturing and selling locally and also exporting machinery to other countries and the petitioner-Company purchased iron tubes from Tvl. Kings Iron Trading Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and claimed for Input Tax Credit for the taxes paid in the State for such purchase. The only plea raised before this Court is that as per Section 2(5) of the TNVAT Act, only the assessing authority is entitled to levy and collect any tax. The definition of "assessing authority" as per Section 2(5) makes it clear that "assessing authority" means any person authorised by the Government or by the Commissioner to make any assessment in this Act. 12. A reading of the impugned notice reveals that the first respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Group-VI/Enforcement (South), Greams Road, Chennai is the officer authorised by the Government and the Commissioner to make the assessment and the first respondent is the competent authority to issue the impugned notice. 12. A reading of the impugned notice reveals that the first respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Group-VI/Enforcement (South), Greams Road, Chennai is the officer authorised by the Government and the Commissioner to make the assessment and the first respondent is the competent authority to issue the impugned notice. Except raising a plea regarding the competency of the authority, nothing is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner to prove his case that the first respondent is not the assessing authority as defined under Section 2(5) of the TNVAT Act, and therefore, the plea of the petitioner is rejected on this ground. 13. However, looking into the impugned notice, it is seen that the petitioner is called upon to explain as to what are all their grievances, by filing objections, and such an opportunity having been already provided in the impugned notice itself, without availing of the same, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the said notice. 14. In the light of the above stated legal position as well as the fact that the notice under challenge is only calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the tax immediately and stating that if the petitioner has any objection, they may furnish the details along with documentary evidence and connected records. When such a course is available to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, it does not require any interference by this Court in the stage of notice. Therefore, the challenge made by the petitioner to the said notice, is rejected. 15. However, the petitioner is directed to approach the competent assessing authority and make detailed objections to the impugned notice, dated 21.1.2013, and such objections shall be filed along with documentary evidence and connected records. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-Company has already submitted their objections before the competent assessing authority. If such objections are already filed before the competent assessing authority, the competent assessing authority is directed to consider the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. With the above observations and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.