1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos.11990 to 11993 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,2,2,2 and 2 of 2011 M/s.Trichy Ramesh Pipe Industries (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director-S.Prabaharan, 5/301-A, Trichy Main Road, Thuraiyur-621 010, Trichy District. : Petitioner in all WPs vs. 1.The Special Committee u/s 16-D of TNGST Act, 1959, O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Thuraiyur, Trichy District. : Respondents in all WPs Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorari, calling for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in SCP No.44/2011 Ref.No.M1/20873/11 dated 21.9.2011, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal in so far as the assessment years TNGST 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 are concerned. For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondents in all WPs : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by the Special Committee constituted under Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Heard Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The brief history of the case is as follows:- (i) The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Officials of the Central Excise Department on 1.9.2004 and a provisional opinion was formed by them that there was clandestine removal of final products and suppression of quantity of production. Therefore, they issued a show cause notice dated 15.5.2005. (ii) On the basis of the records seized by the Central Excise Department, D-3 proposals for the years 2001-2002 to 2004-2005 were finalised by the Enforcement Wing of the Department. (iii) Based on the D-3 proposals, notices for revision of assessment were issued on 21.3.2007, for the aforesaid 4 assessment years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (iv) The petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to file objections. The primary objection taken by the petitioner to the D-3 proposals was that after the show cause notice, the Central Excise Authorities did not pass final orders. The petitioner also requested copies of certain documents on the basis of which notices for revision of assessment was made. The copies were furnished by the proceedings of the Assessment Officer dated 6.8.2007. (v) However, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.6693 to 6696 of 2007 on the file of this Court, praying for a direction to the respondents to keep the proposed revision in abeyance till the Central Excise Department passed final orders. Those writ petitions were disposed of by me by an order dated 10.8.2007, directing the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thuraiyur to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.7.2007 and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of 8 weeks. (vi) The Assessing Officer accordingly considered the representation and passed separate orders in respect of each assessment year on 10.10.2007, rejecting the request of the petitioner to keep the proposed revision in abeyance. (vii) As against the orders of the Assessing Officer, the petitioner filed petitions before the Special Committee. The Special Committee considered the request of the petitioner and dismissed the applications. (viii) At the time of hearing before the Special Committee, the petitioner produced a copy of the stay order granted by the Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20.10.2009. But the Special Committee found that the revision of assessment was not solely based on the finding of the Central Excise Authorities. In other words, there was independent evidence. (ix) Consequently, the Special Committee held that there are no grounds to invoke Section 16-D of the Act and rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is against such rejection that the petitioner has come up with the above revisions. 4. It is seen from the narration of facts that the petitioner has been avoiding this proposed revision, from 2004 onwards successfully under one pretext or the other for the past 7 years. The scope of Section 16-D of the Act is very limited. The purpose of Section 16-D is to ensure that any act done by the Assessing Officer was not in violation of the principles of natural justice or the provisions of the Act. The Special Committee rightly found that there was no violation of either of the same. Therefore, the rejection of the prayer by the Special Committee, cannot be found fault with. Hence all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Svn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[RTI] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Special Committee u/s 16-D of TNGST Act, 1959, O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Thuraiyur, Trichy District. +1 cc to Mr.R.Kartheyan, Advocate SR.No.42669. W.P.(MD)Nos.11990 to 11993 of 2011 Dated:02.12.2011 3P/4C RPB 16.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/