2017 (10) TMI 182 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of assessment order – power of Special Committee to reject an application – application rejected on the ground that petitioner did not appear for several hearings – Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Held that: – it is evidently clear that the reason for rejection is utterly perverse. The Special Committee has no jurisdiction to comment upon the observation made by the High Court in the earlier writ petitions and the expressions used in the impugned order are condemnable. The Special Committee did not appreciate the observations made by this Court as to what is the power conferred on it u/s 16-D of the TNGST Act. Without reading the order passed by the High Court, the Special Committee, in a most arbitrary and perverted manner, has passed the impugned order – none of the three members of the Special Committee had applied their mind to the observations contained in paragraph-2 of the order passed in the ea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions has challenged the order passed by the Special Committee under Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ( TNGST Act in short). Since the petitioner approached the Special Committee seeking clarification in respect of assessments for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 under the TNGST Act, two separate orders have been passed rejecting the applications, which has necessitated the petitioner to file the present writ petitions. 3. The petitioner filed returns for the relevant assessment years after which the assessing officer, viz., the second respondent called for the books and checked the accounts and noticed certain defects and omissions. The petitioner thereafter filed Form-XVII Declaration on a portion of the sales turnover and claimed certain payments. While so, on 19.10.2005, the place of business
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
9, rejected the applications as the petitioner did not appear for several hearings. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.20849 and 20850 of 2009 and those writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 22.10.2009 setting aside the order passed by the Special Committee dated 17.09.2009 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Once again the Special Committee has rejected the petitions by way of passing the impugned order. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evidently clear that the reason for rejection is utterly perverse. The Special Committee has no jurisdiction to comment upon the observation made by the High Court in the earlier writ petitions and the expressions used in the impugned order are condemnable. The Special Committee did not appreciate the observations made by this Court as to what is the power conferred on it under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act. Without reading the order passed by the High Court, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
including directing assessing authority to make a fresh assessment. … … … 5.Going by the very contention that there was a deviation proposal from the assessing authority, considering the fact that the petitioner had challenged the assessment as an arbitrary one, as a super regional sits as a corrective mechanism either suo motu or on an application to correct assessments that are in violation of the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, whatever be the merits of the contentions of the petitioner, when the aggrieved assessee approaches the Committee, it is but necessary, the Committee bestows its attention to the issues raised by the petitioner, then pass an order considering the same giving reasons for either accepting or rejecting.'' 5. Thus, none of the three members of the Special Committee had applied their mind to the observations contained in paragraph-2 of the order passed in the earlier writ petitions. Had it been done, then obviously the Committee could n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n independent mind, uninfluenced by any report given by the Enforcement Wing or the direction given by the Joint Commissioner. This procedure alone would meet the ends of justice. 7. For the above reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the order passed by the Special Committee impugned in these writ petitions are set aside. Consequently, the orders of assessment passed by the second respondent for the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 under the TNGST Act dated 27.04.2009 and 29.04.2009 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment for both the assessment years by independently applying its mind to the materials placed before him without in any manner referring to the report of the Enforcement Officials or that of the concerned Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =