TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short, "TNGST Act"). The first respondent has rejected the said applications and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. Brief facts leading to W.P. No. 33852 of 2007 are as follows: During the assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,13,82,697 and Rs. 2,49,283, respectively by way of monthly returns in form A1 under the TNGST Act. The petitioner's mill was under lockout due to strike for the period between April 6, 2002 and May 31, 2004 and during the strike period, no one was allowed insid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est judgment assessment only when they had received form 4 (section 25 demand prior to attachment of land) from the office of the second respondent and thereafter, obtained a certified copy of the order dated December 16, 2003. Since the second respondent has not followed the cardinal principles of natural justice, the petitioner filed a petition under section 16(D) of the TNGST Act before the Special Committee, first respondent enumerating all the facts leading to the passing of best judgment assessment for the year 2001-02 and prayed for setting aside the same and sought a de novo fresh assessment. By order dated, September 5, 2007, the first respondent rejected the said petition and the rejection order is challenged in this present writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this court, by order dated September 27, 2004, granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeals before the appellate authority from one week from the date of passing of the order. Since there is a provision under the TNGST Act that the petitioner can file a petition under section 16D before the Special Committee to redress their grievances the petitioner filed a petition under section 16D rather than filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Further, the petitioner has to deposit 25 per cent of the disputed tax as pre-condition for entertaining the appeal and therefore, considering the financial constraint, the petitioner opted to file a petition. He further submitted that when no proceedings were pending before the court of law, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment orders for the assessment year 2001-02. He further submitted that if the Special Committee was apprised of the orders made in W.P. Nos. 22627 and 22628 of 2004, the petitions filed under section 16D of the TNGST Act would not have been entertained. He further submitted that the rejection order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, without reference to the other members committee is only a technical mistake, but that would not make the petitioner eligible to avail of the remedy under section 16D of the Act. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that during the relevant period, the mill was under lockout due to strike for more than two year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittee, reveals that the directions of this court made in the above writ petitions granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeals have not been placed before the Special Committee. Proviso to section 16D is a restriction placed on the exercise of jurisdiction to the Special Committee that if any proceeding or order against which, the appeal or writ petition is pending. The restriction is based on the principle that more than one forum, cannot simultaneously adjudicate the dispute involved in a petition filed under section 16D of the Act. It is explicit that the grievance of the petitioner regarding the violation of principle of natural justice has been considered by this court while disposing of the above writ petitions. P....