9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion of law to be decided. In the light of the discussion,thus of the view that the directions of the appellate authority have been properly complied with by the assessing officer and the petitioner has not made out any strong grounds. The impugned orders do not warrant any interference. The writ petitions are dismissed. - W.P. Nos. 25260,25261 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2007 - MANIKUMAR S. , J. ORDER:- S. MANIKUMAR J. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the revised orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Singanallur Circle, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein, in respect of assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively. Since the facts and law involved in both writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) and an assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the enforcement wing officers on October 10, 1998 and certain records, su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the directions of the appellate authority, he had produced the available records with purchase bills before the assessing officer for verification on February 22, 2002. On verification of the records, the first respondent directed the petitioner to obtain affidavits from the respective sellers, and confirm whether the seller had in fact paid the tax to their respective assessing authority or not. The petitioner has further submitted that as the assessing officer has got powers under sections 54 and 54A of the Act to obtain a certificate of proof of earlier sufferance of tax from the respective assessing officers of the sellers, he ought not to have insisted the petitioner to file affidavits from the sellers as proof of evidence for earlier sufferance of tax. Though the direction of the assessing officer was not acceptable of compliance, however, the petitioner requested to grant sufficient time so as to make serious efforts to obtain and file the affidavits from the sellers. When the assessee was trying to get the affidavit from their sellers, the first respondent again passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent being a quasi-judicial authority ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner to produce the accounts and (ii) the first respondent has failed to issue summons under sections 54 and 54A of the Act to the respective dealers to cross-check the sale transactions and payment of sales by the sellers of the assessee. On the contrary, Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent submitted that the first respondent-assessing authority has followed the directions of the appellate authority promptly and though notices issued to the petitioner were acknowledged by one of the Directors, viz., Sushil George Vargese, he has failed to honour his promise and produced the accounts and therefore, in the absence of any materials to correlate the purchases effected from the sellers, and sufferance of tax at their hands, the assessing officer has rightly passed the impugned orders which are in conformity with the directions and the procedure contemplated under the Act and therefore, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference of this court. Heard Mr. R. Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had produced the records and purchase bills for verification on February 22, 2002. Upon verification of particulars furnished by the petitioner, a notice was issued on June 28, 2002 to the petitioner with a request to obtain and file affidavits from six dealers from whom, the purchases were effected, with the details of the turnover and the taxes paid thereon. The assessing authority also directed the petitioner to file their reply within September 25, 2002, failing which, the proposals would be confirmed. Notices sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to all the directors of the company, viz., (1) Abraham Varghese (2) Molly Abraham Varghese and (3) Susil George Varghese were received by them on different dates. On receipt of the said notice, Mr. Sushil George Varghese, Managing Director had appeared before the assessing authority and requested time till November 2002, stating that they have obtained five affidavits from their dealers along with the bills and other details to prove the purchase. It is further evident from the records that during the time of processing of D7 records, the petitioner has not produced the necessary affidavits and bills to prove that suffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom purchases were effected and also submit the details of the turnover reported by them to the Department. The said notices sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to all the directors of the company, viz., (1) Abraham Varghese (2) Molly Abraham Varghese and (3) Susil George Varghese were received by them on March 28, 2003. As the assessee failed to file their objections within the stipulated time, the assessing authority has once again confirmed the proposals and therefore, the petitioner filed another appeal before the appellate authority in A.P. No. 1026 of 2004 and the same was ordered on November 7, 2005 with a direction to the assessing officer to carefully recheck the transactions of the assessee with the entries in their accounts and pass justifiable assessment order and issue cross check reference for verifying the proof of tax sufferance. Thereafter, on receipt of the notice, Mr. Sushil George appeared on December 16, 2006 and submitted a letter stating that the account books were with the auditor and he would produce them on December 17, 2006. But he failed to produce the same and therefore, the assessing officer confirmed the proposals, vide order dated June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case cited by the petitioner in Ragam Polymers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Ice House Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in [2007] 8 VST 131, this court at paragraph No. 7, held that when the appellate authority has given certain directions to the assessing officer, while remanding the matter, the assessing officer cannot over-reach the appellate authority's order. In the instant case, on facts, it cannot be said that the assessing officer has over-reached the directions granted by the appellate authority. On contrary, the appellate authority had given sufficient notice to the assessee to produce certain records for the purpose of correlation with D7 records. As stated supra, though one of the directors appeared in person, he had failed to utilise the opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the assessing authority has failed to comply with the directions of the appellate authority. Merely because, the assessing officer had contacted the assessee over phone, no motive can be attributed without any specific allegations. Statute provides an appeal remedy under section 31 of the TNGST Act. The fact that is disputed in thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
