AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Impugned Notice No Assessment Year 12507/2010 03.06.2010 Rc.No.3302/2010/B1 1999-2000 14363/2010 24.02.2010 TNGST/0500792/92/1999-2000 1999-2000 14364/2010 24.02.2010 TNGST/0500792/92/2000-2001 2000-2001 3. The brief facts of the cases are that two assessments were completed by way of two separate assessment orders dated 30.04.2011 and 06.03.2002 for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively. 4. The Commercial Tax Department however sought to re-open the assessments and therefore notices issued under Section 16 of the TNGST Act , 1959 on 25.02.2003 which was culminated in two separate orders dated 31.01.2005 for the respective assessment years. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2009 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 16 of the TNGST Act, 1959. 10. These objections of the petitioner was rejected vide two separate communications dated 24.02.2010 which called upon the petitioner to file its objections if any within a period of 15 days. Against the aforesaid communications calling upon the petitioner to furnish its reply on merits, the petitioner filed two separate revision petitions dated 12.03.2010 under Section 33 of the TNGST Act, 1959 before the 2nd respondent Joint Commissioner (CT). 11. By a communication dated 19.03.2010, the petitioner was informed that the said revision petitions could be filed before the 2nd respondent Joint Commissioner (CT) under Section 33 of the TNGST A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent finds that the revision is maintainable, he is directed to consider the stay application and pass appropriate orders on merits. The said exercise has to carried out by the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, till the order is passed by the second respondent, neither the first respondent nor the second respondent shall proceed further in pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 24.02.2010. 14. However, by a communication dated 10.05.2010 the petitioner was informed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion was not entertained and was disposed with a observation that the "petitioner had filed the same set of papers aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the petitioner submits that by an internal order dated 01.03.2007, the Deputy Commercial Tax officer had recommended for dropping of demand with the following observations:- "Subsequent to the proceedings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the dealer's were issued a notice in this office TNGST no.0500792/1999-2000 dated 09-11-2006 calling for the submission of the copies of the records which were produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as evidences of proof in support of their claim for third sellers in the State. The dealer vide their letter dated 04-12-2006 had furnished the entire copies of the documents relating to the purchases effected from Tvl.Sivam Enterprises, along with the proof for the movement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nication bearing reference R.C.No422/07/B1/Dated 01-03-2007 exchanged between the Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (CT). It is not an order which was communicated to the petitioner. 21. It is noticed that the petitioner has challenged only the notices issued by the 1st respondent on 24.02.2010 pursuant to the orders dated 16.05.2005 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) - III and a notice issued pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2010 of this Court in W.P.Nos.9771 & 9772 of 2010. All the Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioner including the present Writ Petitions were nothing, but abuse of the court proceeding. 22. Since the direction of this Court in the above Writ Petitions has not been complied with, ....