1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P.(MD)No.4121 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sri Maruthi Automobiles, Rep.by its Properitor B.Pravin Kumar, No.1, Arunachalam Pettai Street, Kovilpatti 628 501, Tuticorin District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor Elilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer – I, C.T.Buildings, Ettayapuram Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the revision of the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in TIN 33725862230/ 2006-2007 dated 10.03.2011 received by the petitioner on 10.03.2011 and quash and to direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh revision of assessment order of assessment after affording opportunity. For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujbur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, G.A. O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the revision of the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in TIN 33725862230/2006-2007 dated 10.03.2011 received by the petitioner on 10.03.2011 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh revision of assessment order of assessment after affording opportunity to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order was passed on 10.03.2011, without receiving any objection from the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was not well and as such, he was not able to respond to the summons and notice issued against him. The learned counsel would submit that the non submission of the objections and accounts before the authority concerned is neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, it is contended that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner enabling him to put forward his objections. The learned counsel would also place reliance on a similar order passed by this Court dated 28.11.2008 in W.P.(MD)Nos.3730, 3731, 3733 and 3734 of 2008. 3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the petitioner was given enough opportunity. It is further submitted that in the counter, it is clearly stated that the summons were served on the petitioner as per the Rule 19 of TNVAT Act, 2006 and a show cause notice was also sent on 05.10.2010, which was served on 13.10.2010. But, in spite of the same, the petitioner has not responded and he has not submitted the accounts for random check. It is further contended that in stead of exhausting the alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, 2006, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4.This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the impugned order and also the other materials available on record. 5.The fact remains that even as per the admitted version of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has not filed any objection and without receiving any objection, the impugned order was passed. Though it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that in spite of serving the summons and showcause notice, the petitioner has not produced the accounts for random check, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the 2nd respondent in the event of affording one more opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.03.2011 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to file his objections and produce the accounts, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy of this Court and thereupon, the 2nd respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor Elilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer – I, C.T.Buildings, Ettayapuram Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District +One Cc to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, SR.No.39344 +One cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.39543 nbj rl/5 c- 23.11.2011 W.P.(MD)No.4121 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 12.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/