JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN:33911806119/2012-13, dated 11.04.2019 quash the same.) 1. This batch of thirteen W.P.'s have been filed by manufacturers of footwear and relates to various periods of assessment i.e.2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. The petitioners were visited with inspection by the officials of the enforcement section of the Commercial Taxes Department. 2. The inspection, according to the respondents, revealed certain fallacies and flaws in the pricing mechanism adopted by the petitioners. Prima facie, the officials of the Enforcement Department appear to have been of the view that the petitioner has undervalued its products and consequently the pricing so as to avail the benefit of statutory exemption that it claims. 3. To be noted that Entry-30/Part B/Schedule-IV of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Taxes Act, 2006 (in short 'Act') exempts turnover from the sale of footwear, where each pair of the footwear is priced at less than Rs.200/-. Since the petitioner has priced the pairs at less than Rs.200/-, this has triggered a suspicion in the minds of the revenue that the prices have been tampered so as to bring them within the cover of the exemption. 4. For the purposes of this order, W.P.No.12997/2019, in the case of VKC Footcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Tax Officer, is taken to be the main Writ Petition and the dates, facts and circumstances in this Writ Petition are alluded to for the sake of clarity. 5. Both Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Mr.R.Siddharth, learned Government Advocate for Commercial Taxes Department would concur on the position that barring minute differences in the numbers and in the assessment years, there are no material differences in the matters, and hence the order passed in relation to W.P.No.12997 of 2019 would equally apply to the facts and circumstances as well as the legal position that arises in the case of all the Writ Petitioners. 6. Notice under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act dated 20.07.2018 came to be issued, proposing a revision to the turnover of the petitioner and relying upon the findings of the enforcement officials. 6. Notice under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act dated 20.07.2018 came to be issued, proposing a revision to the turnover of the petitioner and relying upon the findings of the enforcement officials. It is relevant to note that the aforesaid notice does not refer to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act that is a specific provision, providing for assessment of sales turnover shown in the accounts, at low prices; that is to say, where the sales have been undervalued so as to gain an unfair benefit and evade payment of tax. 7. The petitioner responded to the notice, setting out details of the pricing mechanism followed by it. Objection dated 26.10.2018 was followed by yet another revision notice to which the petitioner responded by way of final objection, also seeking personal hearing. The petitioner was afforded personal hearing pursuant to which impugned order has come to be passed. 8. The order of assessment is, no doubt, detailed. Also undoubtedly, the Assessing Authority refers, for the first time in the concluding portion of the order, to Section 24 of the Act. Before adverting to the issue of undervaluation, a mere fundamental issue that would arise, relates to limitation in relation to three Writ Petitions as tabulated in the paragraph below. 9. The petitioner has set out certain dates in support of its arguments relating to limitation, proceeding on the basis of limitation provided under Sections 27 as well as 24 for the reason that the periods of limitation provided under the aforesaid statutory provisions are different. 10. While Section 24 provides for a limitation of six years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, Section 27 provides for limitation of six years from the date of original assessment. Some of the assessments are seen to be barred by limitation whether one reckons limitation in terms of Section 24 or 27, as the case may be. 11. The relevant dates are not in dispute and are tabulated below: Limitation under Section 24 of the TNVAT Act, 2006: S.No. Party Name W.P.No. Assessment Year Deemed Assessment Limitation under Section 24 Date of Revision of notice Date of Final Order 1. VKC Footcare India 12997/2019 2010-11 VAT 31.03.2011 31.03.2016 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 2. VKC Footcare India 12999/2019 2011-12 VAT 31.03.2012 31.03.2017 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 3. VKC Footcare India 13002/2019 2012-13 VAT 31.03.2013 31.03.2018 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 4. VKC Footcare India 12997/2019 2010-11 VAT 31.03.2011 31.03.2016 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 2. VKC Footcare India 12999/2019 2011-12 VAT 31.03.2012 31.03.2017 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 3. VKC Footcare India 13002/2019 2012-13 VAT 31.03.2013 31.03.2018 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 4. VKC Footprint Global 12966/2019 2012-13 VAT 31.03.2013 31.03.2018 20.09.2018 11.04.2019 Limitation under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 S.No. Party Name W.P.No. Assessment Year Deemed Assessment Limitation under Section 27(1) Date of Revision of notice Date of Final Order 1. VKC Footcare 12997/2019 2010-11 VAT 30.06.2012 30.06.2017 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 2. VKC Footcare 12999/2019 2011-12 VAT 30.06.2012 30.06.2017 20.09.2018 09.04.2019 3. Ferrari Shoes 13195/2019 2011-12 VAT 30.06.2012 30.06.2017 20.09.2018 10.04.2019 12. The revision notices in relation to the above periods have been issued pursuant to the expiry of the limitation both under Sections 24 & 27 of the Act and since learned Additional Advocate General would, fairly, not dispute the dates, the impugned orders of assessment as above, are barred by limitation and are set aside. The respective Writ Petitions are allowed. 13. Now, I advert to the issue of pricing which permeates across all Writ Petitions. The order tabulates the differences in pricing between (i) the company/manufacturer/petitioner (ii) wholesale dealers and (iii) Maximum Retail Price/retail dealers. The respective Writ Petitions are allowed. 13. Now, I advert to the issue of pricing which permeates across all Writ Petitions. The order tabulates the differences in pricing between (i) the company/manufacturer/petitioner (ii) wholesale dealers and (iii) Maximum Retail Price/retail dealers. The tabulation, relating to 43,99,956 pairs of footwear is extracted below: Article Description No. of Pairs Price per pair Percentage difference between Sale value difference between Company Price Wholesale dealer price MRP/Retail dealer price Wholesaler dealer price & Company price Retailer dealer price & Wholesale dealer price Retailer dealer price & Company price Wholesaler dealer & Company Retailer dealer & Wholesales dealer Retailer dealer & Company 1021GENTS 287376 195 215 329.9 10.26 53.44 69.18 20 114.9 134.9 1022GENTS 8880 190 209 319.9 10.00 53.06 68.37 19 110.9 129.9 1010GENTS 3144 180 198 299.9 10.00 51.46 66.61 18 101.9 119.9 1121GENTS 2112 176 194 269 10.23 38.66 52.84 18 75 93 125LADIES 7110 162 178.5 249 10.19 39.50 53.70 16.5 70.5 87 321LADIES 840 151 166 229.5 9.93 38.25 51.99 15 63.5 78.5 322LADIES 19980 151 166 229.5 9.93 38.25 51.99 15 63.5 78.5 1031GENTS 809232 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1032GENTS 148656 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1033GENTS 372768 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1034GENTS 282480 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1035GENTS 157296 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1036GENTS 828600 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1037GENTS 30120 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1038GENTS 358344 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 1039GENTS 46464 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 2003GENTS 12384 151 162.5 199.9 7.62 23.02 32.38 11.5 37.4 48.9 111LADIES 129660 144 158 219.5 9.72 38.92 52.43 14 61.5 75.5 107LADIES 139920 141 155 214 9.93 38.06 51.77 14 59 73 102LADIES 94680 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 121LADIES 69390 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 201LADIES 1110 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 255LADIES 180 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 1031BOYS 5790 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 1035BOYS 3660 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 1038BOYS 21750 137 148.5 199.9 8.39 34.61 45.91 11.5 51.4 62.9 104LADIES 253230 134 147 198.9 9.70 35.31 48.43 13 51.9 64.9 105LADIES 147480 134 147 198.9 9.70 35.31 48.43 13 51.9 64.9 106LADIES 50190 134 147 198.9 9.70 35.31 48.43 13 51.9 64.9 103BOYS 30450 134 147 198.9 9.70 35.31 48.43 13 51.9 64.9 101LADIES 30150 128 140 194.9 9.38 39.21 52.27 12 54.9 66.9 103LADIES 39330 128 140 194.9 9.38 39.21 52.27 12 54.9 66.9 901LADIES 720 75.5 83 114.9 9.93 38.43 52.19 7.5 31.9 39.4 925LADIES 3780 65.5 72 99.9 9.92 38.75 52.52 6.5 27.9 34.4 926LADIES 1620 65.5 72 99.9 9.92 38.75 52.52 6.5 27.9 34.4 929LADIES 1080 58.5 64.5 89.9 10.26 39.38 53.68 6 25.4 31.4 14. There is no reference in the order as to what the specific materials are that lead to the conclusion that the price of the products are undervalued. Though reference is made to the visit of officials from Enforcement, there is no detail in regard to what those officials found to have led to a suspicion of undervaluation either. 15. In the discussion, the authority states that the pricing arrived at by a manufacturer should take into account expenses on advertisement, promotion and transport, royalty and other expenses that would have an impact upon the cost of production. 16. The petitioner has admittedly received royalty from the use of the brand 'VKC' and according to it, the royalty as well as the expenses enumerated by the officer have been taken into account by it, in arriving at the pricing. The petitioner is right in stating that apart from general observation on how proper is to be arrived at, there is nothing brought on record by the officer to support a conclusion that such factors have not been taken into account in arriving at the pricing. 17. That apart, there is no scientific assessment of the pricing itself set out in support of the conclusion that relevant parameters to determine fix/pricing have been omitted, thus, leading to a conscious undervaluation. There is an apprehension in the minds of the authorities that the fixation of the prices is abnormal, perhaps for the reason that all the footwear have been priced at sums less than Rs.200/- per pair, and taking note of the variation of the prices at every stage of sale, manufacturer/wholesaler/retailer. Such differences however, may well arise on account of the costs incurred at each stage and the profit margin of each of the entities. 18. Such differences however, may well arise on account of the costs incurred at each stage and the profit margin of each of the entities. 18. The provisions of Section 24 of the Act provide for exactly the situation that arises in the present case, and read as follows: Assessment of sales shown in accounts at low prices: (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that a dealer has, with a view to evade the payment of tax, shown in his accounts, sales or purchases of any goods, at prices which are abnormally low compared to the prevaling market price of such goods, it may, at any time within a period six years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, assess or re-assess the dealer to the best of its judgment on the turnover of such sales or purchases after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such assessment. (2) The provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 27, shall, as far as may be, apply to assessment or re-assessment under sub-section (1) as they apply to the re-assessment of escaped turnover under sub-section (1) of Section 27. 19. Section 24 of the Act has been enacted in pari materia with Section 12A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to address transactions that are not bonafide and have been consciously and willfully undervalued and understated with a view to evade payment of tax. In the present case, the argument of the revenue is that the petitioner has undervalued the transactions merely to obtain the benefit of exemption under Entry-30/Part-B/Schedule-IV of the Act. 20. To establish this, it is, firstly, to be shown that the enforcement visit revealed materials in support of the allegation of willful undervaluation/conscious suppression. This has not been established in the present case since even the Show Cause Notices and the assessment orders merely proceed on suspicions and surmises. 21. Though the officer refers to various components of pricing such as advertisement, promotion, transport, royalty and others, there is nothing to show that these factors/parameters have not been taken into account by the petitioner. In fact, it is the petitioners' case that the pricing has been arrived at in a scientific manner. 22. 21. Though the officer refers to various components of pricing such as advertisement, promotion, transport, royalty and others, there is nothing to show that these factors/parameters have not been taken into account by the petitioner. In fact, it is the petitioners' case that the pricing has been arrived at in a scientific manner. 22. That apart, Section 24 specifically requires undervaluation to be established qua other identically placed manufacturers / dealers. The language of the section is specific insofar as it states that the pricing should be 'abnormally low' when compared to the 'prevailing market price of such goods'. The prevailing market price must be taken into account which means that comparison must have been arrived at as between the prices of the manufacturer/petitioner and other identically placed manufacturers. This has admittedly not been done. 23. In fact, nowhere in the Show Cause Notice nor the impugned order, does the officer enter into such a discussion at all. Thus, in my view, though the provision has been referred to in passing, the ingredients of Section 24 have not been referred to, much less satisfied in the impugned order. 24. Lastly, learned AAG confirms, on instructions, that the wholesaler has remitted the VAT on the entirety of the turnover. For instance, as regards the article described as 1021 gents' in the tabulation in paragraph No.13 above, the company price is Rs.195/- and wholesaler price is Rs.215/- and tax has been remitted in regard to the sum of Rs.215/-. Thus, the exercise in this case appears to be revenue neutral. 25. In light of the detailed discussion as above, the impugned orders are set aside and these Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.