1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.7564 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Tvl.Carmel Engineering, Represented by its Proprietor, G.Thangaraj, Plot No.5, Peniel Nagar, Viraganur Dam, Madurai. : Petitioner vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupparankundram Circle, Madurai-20. : Respondent Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent in CST 741944/2006-07 dated 3.2.2011 quash the same as violative of the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent to pass order afresh after verifying the Bill of Lading and other connected shipping documents filed by the petitioner on 19.5.2011 in support of their claim of exemption on their Export Sales and grant exemption. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the respondent, revising an assessment earlier made, by withdrawing the exemption on the sale of exports. 2. Heard Mr.A.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioner claimed exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs.14,70,050/- on the ground that the same represented the value of the sale price of a machinery intended for export. While allowing exemption on the sale of exports, the respondent demanded the petitioner to file proof of having made the export actually. The petitioner was obliged to file the Bill of Lading. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. But since the petitioner could not produce the Bill of Lading within the time stipulated, the respondent passed an order dated 3.2.2011, withdrawing the exemption and determining the tax due. However, subsequently, the petitioner obtained the Bill of Lading from the exporter and produced it before the respondent. But, by an order dated 26.5.2011, the respondent rejected the request for considering the Bill of Lading, on the ground that it was not produced within time and that therefore, an order had already been passed. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the respondent, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 5. It is true that within the time stipulated by the respondent, the petitioner could not produce the Bill of Lading. But subsequently he has produced. The order dated 3.2.2011 itself is an order revising the assessment. Therefore, nothing would prevent the respondent from revising the same after considering the Bill of Lading produced by the petitioner. Merely because an order had already been passed, it does not become irreversible. I am also fortified in my above conclusion by a decision of M.Jaichandren, J., E.I.Dupont (I) (P) Ltd vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer {2008 (12) VST 235 (Mad.)}. The said decision followed the decision of a Division Bench. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the Bill of Lading and other documents produced by the petitioner and pass an order thereafter in accordance with law and on the merits of the case. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupparankundram Circle, Madurai-20. + 1 cc to M/s.A.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, SR No.35541 + 1 cc to M/s.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR No.35729 WP(MD) No.7564/2011 13.10.2011 Svn RJ/28.10.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/