1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.351 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 Tvl.South India Bromine and Allied Chemicals (P) Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Thiru Micheal Motha 100 South Cotton Road Tuticorin : Appellant /Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.)-II C.T. Buildings, Beach Road, Tuticorin : Respondent/Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No.11025 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the pre-assessment notice in CST 467283-02-03 dated 13.09.2006 and quash the same and to direct respondent to consider the objection already submitted to the respondent on 05.10.2006 and 12.08.2010. For appellant Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim Ali for Mr. Mujubur Rahman JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2010 passed in W.P. (MD) No.11025 of 2010 which was filed challenging the pre-assessment notice of the respondent dated 13.09.2006. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, as per the said notice, even the freight charges have been included in the sale price, which is contrary to the decided cases, consequently, that order has to be set aside. 3. A perusal of the pre-assessment notice dated 13.09.2006 reveals that by the said notice, the appellant/writ petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 been directed to raise his objection, if any, for the above proposals made by the respondent with regard to the tax to be levied. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, already, the appellant/writ petitioner has raised his objection and has also had personal hearing. It is also fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that no orders have been passed subsequent to this, that is to say, even according to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, as on date, no adverse orders have been passed by the respondent also. 4. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant/writ petitioner to appear before the respondent for personal hearing again, if he intends to have it. It is up to the appellant/writ petitioner to appear for personal hearing or not and if the appellant/writ petitioner is not willing to appear for personal hearing, he cannot be compelled to appear for personal hearing. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and we are of the considered opinion that at a pre-mature stage, the writ petition as well as the writ appeal has been filed. Consequently, we are inclined to entertain the writ appeal. If the appellant/writ petitioner intends to appear before the authority concerned as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the same can be intimated by the appellant/writ petitioner to the respondent and on receipt of such an intimation from the appellant/writ petitioner thereafter within a period of two weeks, the respondent is directed to provide an opportunity to the appellant/writ petitioner and to proceed further. 5. With the above said direction, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.)-II C.T. Buildings, Beach Road, Tuticorin. +1 CC to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate (SR.No.7719) W.A. (MD) No.351 of 2011 23.03.2011 cad NSV/8.6.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/