Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 576 (MAD)

Kaesav Saw Mill v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thiruverumbur Assessment Circle, Trichy

2015-02-02

B.RAJENDRAN

body2015
Order 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in TIN 33653561994/2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 dated 29.12.2014 issued by the first Respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order after taking into consideration all the replies and contentions put forthwith recorded evidences in the letter of the objection dated 26.12.2014. 2. This is the case where the petitioner firm was asked to submit his papers for the assessment for a period of five years between 2007 and 2011. Originally, a pre-revision show cause notice was issued on 10.12.2014 fixing the objection date of hearing on 12.12.2014. On that date, he appeared and sought one month time. Thereafter, on 18.12.2014, a notice was issued calling upon him to appear for personal hearing on 26.12.2014. On that date, he appeared and submitted all voluminous documents relating to five continuous years. On 26.12.2014, he also made a further request in writing seeking for further one more personal hearing upto 05.01.2015 to establish his case. But without considering the letter dated 26.12.2014 seeking extension of time, summarily an order has been passed on 29.12.2014 rejecting the contention of the petitioner firm without taking into consideration the documents relating five assessment years have been produced. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firm would submit that the officer concerned could not have even taken into consideration the voluminous records produced before him. According to the petitioner, if one more opportunity is given, a reasonable order can be passed by the respondents. In order to show bona fide of the petitioner firm, the petitioner firm is ready to deposit 15% of the tax amount demanded in the impugned notices 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that earlier personal hearing was given. But that day, he has sought for time. Therefore, second notice was issued to the petitioner. Eventuality, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents. In any event, the objection raised by the petitioner has been considered and order has been passed in accordance with law. 5. By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. 6. Therefore, second notice was issued to the petitioner. Eventuality, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents. In any event, the objection raised by the petitioner has been considered and order has been passed in accordance with law. 5. By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and decided by a common order. 6. The contention of the petitioner that they should have given one more opportunity to sustain their claim is well founded for the simple reason that for five continuous assessment years, when voluminous documents have been produced by the petitioner, definitely, some time is required by the respondents for arriving at a reasonable conclusion. Secondly, the petitioner firm has also appeared for an enquiry on 26.12.2014. After the enquiry, he has sought one more opportunity till 05.01.2015. But, that has not been granted by the respondents. In an identical matters, this Court has observed that some time could have been given to the firm and thereafter, the appeal could be decided, since it is an appellable remedy. Because of the fact that such opportunity has not been given and the petitioner firm is ready to deposit 15% of the disputed tax demanded in the impugned notices within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the orders impugned stand set aside and these Writ Petitions are allowed with the following directions:- i. As agreed before this Court, the petitioner firm should pay 15% of the demanded tax demanded in the impugned notices within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without fail. After remitting the said amount, the respondents are directed to fix the date and time for hearing giving at least two days of hearing time to the petitioner to put forth his contentions within a period of three weeks, thereafter. ii. After the first conditions are fulfilled, the respondents are directed to pass final orders within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner availed such opportunity as directed by this Court. iii. ii. After the first conditions are fulfilled, the respondents are directed to pass final orders within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner availed such opportunity as directed by this Court. iii. If the petitioner firm fails to avail this opportunity and failed to appear as per the date and time and the conditions stipulated therein, the interim measure given by this Court shall stand vacated without further reference to this Court and the respondent can pass orders as per law. These Writ Petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.