9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matters are remitted back to the Commercial Tax Officer/respondent for reconsideration on the merits. The petitioner will be entitled to produce all records and materials that may be available for the purpose of effectively concluding the assessment proceeding. - Writ Petition Nos. 14086,14087 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2009 - SUDHAKAR R. , J. ORDER:- R. SUDHAKAR J. The writ petition No. 14086 of 2005 is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records of the respondent in TNGST 0560206/2003-2004 dated March 31, 2005 made under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and quash the same. Writ Petition No. 14087 of 2005 is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records of the respondent in CST 36559/2003-2004 dated March 31, 2005 made under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and quash the same. The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling audio cassettes, CDs, DVDs and VCDs. The petitioner-company is an assessee registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d November 26, 2004 and November 29, 2004, respectively, the petitioner's authorised representative Mr. Sengupta appeared before the respondent with all books of accounts, balance sheet, etc. On January 7, 2005 another notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear on January 25, 2005. According to the petitioner, petitioner's authorised representative Mr. Sengupta appeared before the respondent on January 19, 2005 with books of account and other documents and submitted it. On January 27, 2005, Mr. Sengupta along with another accountant Mr. Ganapathy appeared before the respondent with records and documents and explained the transaction and sought for further time. As regards the plea of branch transfers, refuting local purchase and sale, petitioner filed original form F and extract of form 13 register. It is further stated that on February 2, 2005, the said Shri Ganapathy appeared before the respondentDepartment and pleaded for some time till the accounts are finalized at Mumbai head office. Thereafter, on February 18, 2005 another pre-assessment notice was issued. In that pre-assessment notice, it is clearly stated that on the earlier occasion, Mr. Sengupta, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2005 confirming the proposal on the basis of the best judgment. The respondent demanded a huge amount as tax together with surcharge and additional sales tax. In effect, the entire turnover as per balance sheet was taken, rejecting the turnover submitted. The writ petitions have been filed challenging the said assessment orders, primarily on the ground that the orders of assessment are contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules and therefore, without jurisdiction and the entire proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice and arbitrary in nature as the petitioner was not given sufficient and reasonable opportunity and time to provide records including statutory records to substantiate the plea that the turnover stated in the notice is erroneous and consequently the turnover determined as per the pre-assessment notice and the order is bad. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the Department's stand. The request of the petitioner seeking time, the appearance of Mr. Sengupta, the authorised representative of the petitioner, is not in dispute. It is pointed out that sufficient time was granted to produce books of accounts and records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated March 5, 2005. Similar requests were made earlier by the petitioner, but for one or other reason the respondent-Department refused to grant sufficient time and notices were issued in quick succession. The respondent-authority did not allow the assessee reasonable time to mobilize all the records from the head office. In view of the short period of time granted for every hearing, the petitioner was put to great hardship and prejudice as they could not comply with the Department's request in time. The request was bona fide and it was because of the time taken at the head office to prepare the balance sheet. This is not deliberate or intentional delay on the part of the petitioner. As has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, prima facie as per the statutory records, the head office and the regional offices are assessed separately at the different regions in the respective States, including the Central Sales Tax Act. If that be so, the respondent-Department has to consider the plea of the petitioner that the turnover insofar as the Chennai region will not include the sales turnover relatable to other regions. This relevant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
