1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.2233 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Rayalaseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory J.Shankaran Thirumangalam Railway Yard, Thirumangalam, Madurai-625 706. : Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thirumangalam, Madurai-625 706. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in C.S.T.No.119999/2009-2010, dated 25.01.2011 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner challenges the order dated 25 January 2011 on the file of the respondent, whereby and whereunder, order of assessment was made for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The respondent earlier passed an order of assessment on 27.10.2010 determining the tax payable by the petitioner. The said order was challenged before this Court in a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13486 of 2010 on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. The assessment order was set aside with liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, fresh assessment order was passed by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the earlier assessment order was set aside by this Court as per order dated 10 November 2010. Since the assessment order has been set aside by this Court, the respondent was bound to issue fresh notice to the petitioner calling upon them to submit their objections and it was only thereafter, the assessing authority was expected to pass fresh assessment order. Therefore, the learned counsel challenges the order primarily on the ground that the prescribed procedure was not followed by the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13486 of 2010 for the purpose of issuing a fresh notice has no basis. The earlier assessment order was set aside not on the ground that no notice was issued or the response given by the petitioner was not considered. It was set aside solely on the ground that opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner. It was only in the said circumstances, this Court set aside the assessment order and directed the respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a fresh assessment order. The direction to pass a fresh assessment order does not mean that the respondent has to redo the entire exercise commencing from issuance of notice and calling upon the petitioner to submit their objections. The petitioner has already submitted their objections in response to the notice issued by the respondent. Therefore, the only requirement was to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that no such opportunity was granted to them, in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13486 of 2010. Therefore, the contention that the earlier order has not been complied with by the respondent has no basis. 5. Even otherwise, the order impugned is an appealable order. No reasons are made out here to bypass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. 6. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. 7. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. 8. After passing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. Since the petitioner expressed their desire to file an appeal before the appellate authority, the Registry is directed to return the original of the impugned order to the petitioner, after substituting a photocopy. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR SML To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thirumangalam, Madurai-625 706. 1CC TO MR. J. POOVENTHERA RAJAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 10171: DM:2011::MARCH:03::: Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2233 of 2011 Dated: 25.02.2011 2P:3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/