TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00215/1998-99 dated 18/01/2002, TNGST No.2000215/1999-00 dated 18/01/2002, quash the same and further direct the second respondent to return the seized records or in the alternative furnish xerox copies of the records seized vide D-7 receipt dated 22/02/2000 and thereafter, afford a real and effective opportunity including personal hearing and thereafter pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order passed under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act, 1959. By the said said order, a Special Committee has rejected the application filed by the petitioner with the following observations: "7.Since the applicants failed to co-operate with the assessing aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d hence, not admissible. 9.In view of the above discussion, the Special Committee concludes that there are no valid legal and factual grounds to entertain the application filed by the applicants." 3. The dispute in the present case pertains the Assessment Year 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture and sale of Poultry feed which was exempted in terms of Entry No.57 of Part B of the Third Schedule of TNGST Act, 1959 which has existed till 26.03.2002. Since, the petitioner claimed to be exempted dealer, the petitioner claims that the petitioner had not maintained proper records. The assessment were completed by an order dated 20.08.2000. While passing the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 18.01.2002 were passed. 7. According to the petitioner, these orders were also purportedly affixed at the place of business which was also under lock and seal under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. Thereafter, the recovery proceedings were initiated and a notices recovery dated 14.08.2002 were sent to the petitioner and the other partners of the petitioner's firm. 8. Under these circumstances, an application under RTI was filed by the petitioner on 30.08.2012. The petitioner obtained copies of the respective assessment orders under RTI. In the above background, the petitioner filed an application under Section 16-D of TNGST Act, 1959 during the month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, no sympathy should be shown to the petitioner and therefore, he submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 13. The case of the petitioner is that assessment orders were passed on 28.08.2000 for the Assessment Year 1998-1999 and on 18.01.2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The assessment was completed with a caveat that since the assessment orders being finalised without check of accounts, the department reserved its right to re-open the case and to tax any turnover, if necessary at a later date. For the assessment year 1999-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order of the 1strespondent adverts to be proceedings which was challenged before it, it fails to address the core issue before it. 18. Since the petitioner did not get to participate in the hearing and an ex parte order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves an opportunity of being heard. 19. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order of the 1st respondent Special Committee is liable to be quashed. I, however do not find any merit in remitting the case back to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order under Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 at this distant point of time. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the....