IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.15359 TO 15361 OF 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 (Three cases) Tvl. Sendamarai Steels, 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Chennai- 600 001. .. Petitioner in all cases. /versus/ The Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour V Assessment Circle, 191, N.S.C.Bose Road, Wavoo Complex, 7th Floor, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents in all cases. Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent passed in T.N.G.S.T. 0080396/2001-02, 2002-2003 and TNGST.0080378/ 2003-2004 respectively, dated 29.3.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to complete the assessment of the first settler as per the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 23 VST 118. For petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaresan. For respondent l : Mr.Sivaraman, Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes). ORDER The petitioner is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.15359 of 2011 relates to the assessment year 2001-2002; the writ petition in W.P.No.15360 of 2011 relates to the assessment year 2002-2003 and the writ petition in W.P.No.15361 of 2011 relates to the assessment year 2003-2004. In all these years, the petitioner was assessed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 and based on the assessment the petitioner also has paid taxes. The respondent sought to exercise its power of revision of assessment for those years under Section 16(1) of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 and a notice was issued under Section 16(1) for revising the assessment and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why revised assessment should not be made. The petitioner, while giving reply, sought for personal hearing. Without giving personal hearing, the impugned order dated 29.3.2011 was passed separately for all these years under Section 16(1)(a) revising the assessment. The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions to quash those orders, without availing appellate remedy on the ground that the respondent ought to have given personal hearing in view of the judgment of this Court in SRC PROJECT PVT. LTD. v. C.C.T. & C.T.O. (2008-09 (14) TNCTJ) . 2. With the consent of both parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed by the respondent and learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) has opposed the writ petition and sought for dismissal of the writ petition based on the instructions from the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in SRC PROJECT PVT. LTD. v. C.C.T. & C.T.O. (2008-09 (14) TNCTJ) squarely applies to the facts of these cases and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) submits that the said judgment was rendered based on the Circular of the respondent providing for personal hearing whenever revisional power is exercised under Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959. Therefore, this judgment could not be applied. 6. I have considered the submissions on either side. In my view learned Special Government Pleader is correct in his submissions that the judgment of the Division Bench should be understood in the context of the Circular of the respondent providing for personal hearing, as Otherwise, the Division Bench would not have rendered such a findings. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act uses the wordings "reasonable opportunity to show cause" in certain contingencies and "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in certain contingencies. Wherever the statute has used the wordings "reasonable opportunity of being heard", then the Department is bound to give an opportunity of personal hearing. However, Section 16(1) (a) does not use the wordings "reasonable opportunity of being heard", but only uses the wordings "reasonable opportunity to show- cause". However, the respondent himself issued the Circular which provides for personal hearing while exercising revisional power under Section 16(1) of the T.N.G.S.T.Act and the said Circular applies to the order of assessment concerned in these writ petitions. Hence, judgment of the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of these https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases. Therefore, for not providing an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly the same are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass orders afresh under Section 16(1)(a) of the T.N.G.S.T.Act after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar sai To The Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour V Assessment Circle, 191, N.S.C.Bose Road, Wavoo Complex, 7th Floor, Chennai – 600 001. + 1 cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.46968 + 3ccs to Mr.K. Kumaresan, SR.46819 W.P.Nos.15359 to 15361/2011 PA(CO) Eu 12.8.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/