1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.6175 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Tvl. Vani Oil Mills, Represented by its Partner Thiru.K.R.Kannan, D.No.5/217, Sattur Road, Sivakasi, Viruthunagar District. ... Petitioner -Vs-. 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, Elilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2.Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) - IV, C.T. Buildings, Satchiahpuram, Sivakasi, Viruthunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Pre-Assessment Notice issued by the second respondent in TNGST 6020852/05-06 dated 18.04.2011 received by the petitioner on 21.04.2011 and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to follow the directions of the first respondent issued in Lr.No.K.Dis.Act Cell I/80548/02, dated 04.01.2003 and K.Dis. Acts Cell I/67123/2003 dated 29.07.2004 and to meet out all the objections filed on 27.05.2011 by giving a personal hearing as per the representation filed to the second respondent on 27.05.2011 (received by the respondent on 27.05.2011) before passing final orders. For Petitioner : M/s.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.TR.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the pre-assessment notice dated 18.04.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (C.T)-IV, Viruthunagar, the second respondent herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that originally, the petitioner has filed a return under which he has crossed turnover of Rs.10,00,00,000/-. But, later on, after the notice, he has submitted that his turnover is not Rs.10,00,00,000/- and above, but, it was only Rs.9,95,00,000/- and if it is Rs.9,95,00,000/-, the additional sales tax as claimed in the notice itself will not be liable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to be taxed. Therefore, he has questioned the jurisdiction of the authority in issuing this notice and according to the petitioner, the notice itself is invalid on the ground that as per the clarification of the Commissioner, only the principal's turnover should have been taken into account and not the agent's turnover. Therefore, he has come forward with this writ petition. 3. At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that this Court does not usually interfere with the pre- assessment notice. He would further submit that for the pre-assessment notice, the petitioner has already submitted his explanation on 29.04.2011 and thereafter, he has submitted one more objection on 18.05.2011. Subsequently, he was issued a notice that as per the earlier notice, since he needed a personal hearing, he was given an another opportunity on 26.05.2011 to produce the documents and pursuant to that, he has also produced the documents as well as submitted his objections in person on 26.05.2011, but, no final order has been passed till date. 4. From the above, it is very clear that the petitioner, having received the pre-assessment notice and having participated in all the subsequent proceedings before passing of the final order, it is not open for him to challenge the pre-assessment notice itself when especially, all the points which have been raised by him for want of jurisdiction or for consideration have been raised by him in his objections which have been put in writing and which are pending before the authority and it is only the authority concerned who will have to pass orders. Therefore, the writ petition, at this stage, is premature and hence not maintainable. 5. In this connection, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied on a unreported judgment of the Division Bench judgment dated 09.07.2007 passed in W.A.(MD) No.229 of 2007 which was passed following the Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 227 (Union of India vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co., Ltd.), for the proposition that the pre-revision notices cannot be questioned in a court of law at this point of time as it is a premature one. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted hereunder: "4. In our view, this writ petition should not have been entertained by the High Court at all. The Assistant Collector is entitled to complete the assessment as he thinks fit in exercise of his judgment and according to his understanding of the law and facts. For this purpose, he can call for and examine whatever documents he considers relevant. If the Assistant Collector fails to follow any judgment of the High Court of this Court, the assessee had adequate statutory remedy by way of an appeal and revision against the assessment order. The Court should not try to control the mode and manner in which an assessment should be made. If the Assistant Collector is of the view that enquiries are necessary to be made as to the price at which trucks were sold at the Regional Sales Offices, the Court cannot stop him from making such enquiries. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. Mr.Sorabjee, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has complained that the assessments are going on endlessly and without due regard to an earlier judgment of the Patna High Court in respect of an earlier assessment year on the very same issues. Whether the controversy raised in this case is covered by an earlier judgment of the High Court is a matter in be decided by the Assistant Collector. He will have to decide all questions of fact and law. He has to make whatever enquiries he thinks necessary for determination of the value of excisable goods. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot give guidance to Assistant Collector about the manner and mode in which the assessment should be made." 6. In any view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed purely on the ground that it is a premature one. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, Elilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2.Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) - IV, C.T. Buildings, Satchiahpuram, Sivakasi, Viruthunagar District. + 1 cc to M/s.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, SR No.18447 + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.18599 W.P.(MD)No.6175 of 2011 14.06.2011 srm RJ/27.6.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/