1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD).Nos.1000 & 1001 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 Tvl.T.Marimuthu, Ayyanar Furniture Mart, No.214/4, K.S.V. Complex, Chatrappatti Road, Rajapalayam. ... Petitioner in both the petitions Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-1, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent in both the petitions Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent in TNGST 3187/05/2004-05 & TNGST 3187/05/2005-06 respectively dated 30.11.2010, quash the same as violative of the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass order afresh after furnishing the copies of the D-7 records relied on for assessment and also after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file a detailed objection to the pre-assessment notice. For petitioner in both the petitions : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For respondent in both the petitions : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Addl. Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The petitioner challenges the order of assessment dated 30.11.2010 pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06. 2.The petitioner is engaged in supplying household articles to customers in villages in and around the Taluk of Rajapalayam on installment basis. He used to carry goods in his Mini Auto Van to the customers in the villages. The petitioner is having his business place at Ralapalayam and branch office at Karivalamvanthanallur, a village near Rajapalayam. Though the petitioner has been doing business in household articles, he has not obtained registration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 3.While the matters stood thus, his business premises were inspected by the officers of the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department on 04.10.2005. The Inspecting Officers seized the purchase bills and account bills. The seized documents were produced before the Assessing Officer and on the basis of the same, the Assessing Officer has issued two pre-assessment notices to the petitioner. In the pre- assessment notices, the respondent proposed to determine the total and taxable turnover at Rs.28,93,472/- for the year 2004-05 and Rs.20,41,511/- for the year 2005-06. The provisional assessment orders were made on the basis of the records seized from the business premises of the petitioner. Even though the provisional orders were served on the petitioner, he has not chosen to submit his reply. Therefore, the respondent passed orders of assessment for the years 2004-05 & 2005-06. Aggrieved by those two orders, the petitioner is before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The petitioner has been doing business at 214/4.K.S.V.Complex, Chatrpatti Road, Rajapalayam and his branch office is situated at 1/338, Nadar Complex, (opposite to Police Station), Karivalamvanthanallur. Even though he has been doing business, he has not chosen to register the concern before the authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The business premises were inspected by the officials of the Commercial Tax Department and certain incriminating documents were seized. The respondent verified those documents and it was proved that the petitioner has transacted business without taking registration under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. This made the respondent to pass provisional assessment orders and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply. However, the petitioner has not chosen to submit his response which made the Assessing Authority to confirm the provisional assessment. 5.The assessment orders are appealable orders before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is not the case of the petitioner that due opportunity was not given to him. The respondent has issued orders of provisional assessment to the petitioner with sufficient time to submit his objections. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not chosen to avail the said opportunity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was not justified in passing the orders. It is open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. On a careful perusal of the entire factual matrix, I am of the view that no reasons are made out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions to by-pass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner proposes to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The said submission is recorded. 7.The petitioner is granted 15 days time to file an appeal before the appellate authority and in the event of filing any such appeal, the appellate authority is directed to decide the same on merits and as per law, without rejecting the matter on the ground of limitation. 8.The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR gcg To The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-1, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 1CC TO MR.A.CHANDRASEKARAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 3203: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 3574: DM:2011:FEBRUARY:02: Common Order in W.P.(MD).Nos.1000 & 1001 of 2011 2P:4C: 28.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/