IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.10.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN W.P.No.14068 Of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 K.P.Sengodan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Special Committee of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer(FAC), Omalur, Salem District. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in its proceedings in SCP.No.100/2007/CCT/M3/54750/06 dated 28.09.2007 and quash the same as illegal and direct the Second respondent to redo the assessment after verification of accounts in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Mahadevan, Government Pleader (Tax) ***** ORDER The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records of the first respondent in its proceedings in SCP.No.100/2007/CCT/M3/54750/06 dated 28.09.2007 and quash the same as illegal and direct the Second respondent to redo the assessment after verification of accounts in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Civil Contractor and he was a registered dealer under the TNGST and CST Acts and he is an assessee on the file of the respondent herein. The petitioner was finally assessed to tax on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.2,55,52,741/- and Rs.6,93,043/- respectively for the assessment year 2000-2001 under TNGST Act. The second respondent found that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with a Sub Contractor by name S.Perumal, Mettu Gounder Thottam and awarded sub contract work of opening the trench laying, jointing, testing and filling the trench for PVC, AC and C1 pipes, and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.77,17,645/- to the Sub Contractor. The second respondent also found that the petitioner has not reported the deemed sale value of AC pipes used in the contract work. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has proposed to revise the assessment by determining the total and taxable turnover at Rs.2,55,52,741/- and Rs.1,23,06,789/- respectively besides proposing penalty under the provisions of law. The petitioner prayed for time to reply to the show cause notice. Finally, the second respondent passed an order, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. He has simply confirmed the proposal. According to the petitioner, the levy of penalty is against the well settled principal of law. Moreover, the order has been passed by the second respondent on the last day of the assessment. Against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. But the first respondent rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, he has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. This Court on 17.06.2008 granted interim stay and subsequently, the said interim order is being extended from time to time. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent passed an order on the last date, ie., 31.03.2006 without affording an opportunity and the same was casually dealt with by the first respondent. Thus, the order suffers from infirmity which is liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel urged this court that the order passed by the second respondent is to be set aside and one more opportunity shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given to the petitioner to produce all the records available with him to the second respondent. 6. From the records, I find that notice was issued to the petitioner/second respondent requiring to file the written objection if any on or before 28.02.2006. A reply was sent by the petitioner by letter dt.28.02.2006 requesting 30 days time to file his objection. Without granting or rejecting the request, the second respondent passed the order dated 31.03.2006. This aspect was also overlooked by the first respondent. 7. Therefore, I am of the considered view, that the orders passed by the second and first respondents suffer from infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the records available with him before the second respondent. The petitioner is also directed to file an objection along with the documents available with him enclosing a copy of this Order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass orders within two months thereafter. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. rrg/vaan Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Special Committee of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer(FAC), Omalur, Salem District. + 1 cc to the Spl Government Pleader (Taxes) SR No. 59028 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Ramanathan, Advocate SR No. 58676 W.P.No.14068 of 2008 RJ(CO) SR/6.11.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/