2018 (2) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ler and as a proprietorship concern under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the TNGST Act ) with effect from 06.06.1970 with registration No.118038. 2. It further states that Thiru.K.Kali Chettiar expired in December, 1991. In this connection, a complaint was received from the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted with the petitioner as well as his brothers and wives of two of the brothers, who have also been enquired and scrutiny of records had revealed that the proprietorship concern registered by Thiru.K.Kali Chettiar has been converted as a partnership concern without informing the Department in time. 3. The notice further states that the fact of demise of Thiru.K.Kali Chett....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nership concern and not as a proprietorship concern. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had lodged a compliant against the then Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, viz., Thiru.Saravanan Sataiappan and Thiru.P.Thiruvasagam, who have colluded with the petitioner s brother for personal gain fabricated documents, altered the records, as if the petitioner has given consent for removal of his name from the partnership firm for which the petitioner has lodged a complaint and the matter is in the process of enquiry and at that juncture, the impugned notice is purely a mala fide action with a view to thwart the enquiry. 7. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner s brothers vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner (Ariyalur) has attested the same. However, the third respondent seeks to take a stand that the Form D application was received without date and seal of the office of the third respondent and issued to the petitioner. If that is so, the petitioner cannot be blamed nor the other partners viz., K.Shanmugam, and K.Selvaraj. As long as the third respondent does not dispute the fact that the Form D application was filed by the petitioner s father Thiru.K.Kali Chettiar as early as on 19.02.1986, it has to be construed that the dealer was always a partnership firm and not a proprietorship as observed in the impugned notice. The third respondent in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit at page 6 has admitted that the Additional Chief Secr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s allotted. There is something more than what meets the eye and the petitioner is, therefore, well justified in naming the few officers alleging that they have colluded with his brothers. It is not known as to whether any departmental action was initiated against those officers, though the Commissioner in his letter addressed to the petitioner dated 03.02.2017 stated that enquiry is being conducted by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Trichy. 13. As mentioned above, the counter affidavit is full of contradictious and the third respondent feigns ignorance and states that she does not know that the proprietorship has been converted as a partnership when she herself admitted that Form D application was filed in February, 1986 giving names of fou....