9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings of the first respondent, in PGST 106110/2005-06, dated October 16, 2007, and the consequential proceedings, in PGST 106110/2005-06, dated January 9, 2008. 3. The writ petition, in W.P. No. 7517 of 2011, has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent, in PGST 106110/2006-07, dated May 13, 2008. 4. Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been heard together and a common order is being passed. 5. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner, M/s. Calpana Service Station, Sulthanpet, Puducherry, challenging the orders passed by the first respondent, for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. 6. It has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said fact, this court had dismissed the writ petition, in W.P. No. 3904 of 2010, as infructuous. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed another writ petition before this court, in W.P. No. 20000 of 2010 (Calpana Service Station v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Puducherry [2012] 52 VST 388 (Mad)), challenging the proceedings of the registering officer, restoring the cancellation of the registration, improperly. This court had granted an interim order of stay of the said proceedings. The petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P. No. 23018 of 2010, for the issuance of C forms and the said writ petition is still pending on the file of this court. 8. It has also been stated that the appeals filed by the petitioner, against the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. It has also been stated that the assessment orders had been passed by the first respondent only based on the statements and records obtained from the oil company. Copies of all the statements and records had not been furnished to the petitioner before the impugned orders had been passed. Further, the impugned orders had been passed without verification and cross-checking of the records with the list of C forms, which were available on the records of the first respondents. In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the first respondent are liable to be set aside. 12. On behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the pre-assessment notice had been sent to the petitioner, along with the necessary documents. In fact, the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court, by way of filing the above writ petitions, under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is clear, from a perusal of the records, that the appeals, said to have been filed by the petitioner, are fabricated documents. The office seals affixed on the appeal papers, said to have been filed by the petitioner, would clearly show that the documents are fabricated. Seals affixed on the appeal papers are not the seals, which were being used by the office of the appellate authority during the relevant point of time. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner, in the present writ petitions, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there is no time-limit stipulated by law, for the filing of the such appeals. Further, the availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar for this court to set aside the impugned orders, especially, when principles of natural justice had been infringed. As per section 13 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, the petitioner ought to have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before the first respondent had passed the impugned orders. It is not open to the respondent-Department to state that the request of the petitioner for further time, for filing the objections, had been allowed, orally, when no such provision is available in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder. In fact, only the ledger extract of the oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the concerned appellate authority, challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent cannot be countenanced, especially, in view of the stand taken by the respondent-Department that the appeal papers filed by the petitioner are fabricated in nature. Even though it would be open to the respondent-Department to examine the issue relating to the fabrication of the appeal papers, by the petitioner, by way of an independent investigation, it would not stand in the way of this court setting aside the impugned assessment orders and to remit the matters back to the assessing officer, for passing fresh assessment orders, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even though it has been stated on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
