TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 2018-2019. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by a common order. 3. Heard Mr. S. Karunakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. J. Padmavathi Devil, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner is that a show cause notice was issued by the respondent for the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 on 11.10.2019, wherein, it was pointed out that in respect of the assessment year 2017-2018, there were 33 defects in the monthly returns submitted by the petitioner and in so far as the assessment year 2018-2019 is concerned, there were 38 defects in the monthly returns submitted by the petitioner. According to the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 11.10.2019, the petitioner had sought time to send a reply. It is the case of the petitioner that sufficient opportunity was not granted by the respondent to the petitioner before passing of the impugned assessment orders. According to the petitioner, the show cause notice has been issued, pursuant to the spot inspection made by the respondent officials at the petitioner's place of business and the impugned assessment orders have been passed mechanically, based on the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing Officials of the respondent. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, they have stated that personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the impugned assessment proceedings, but they did not avail the same. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent. He would also submit that the ultimate aim of proper adjudication is to provide sufficient reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to prove his genuineness with regard to the records. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has passed the impugned order in a hasty manner by total non application of mind. 8. After drawing attention to the assessment order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the representations of the petitioner seeking for further time to send reply to the show cause notice is reflected in the impugned assessment order, no reasons have been given by the respondent in the impugned assessment order as to why the same was been rejected. The learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statutory appeal contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 11. It is not in dispute that the spot inspection in the petitioner's place of business was carried on for 22 days between 22.08.2019 to 20.09.2019. The show cause notice was issued on 11.10.2019 by the respondent to the petitioner indicating 33 defects for the assessment year 2017-18 and 38 defects for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner by his representations dated 26.10.2019 and 11.11.2019, had sought for further time to send reply to the show cause notice on the ground that they have to consult their Auditor before sending their reply. Considering the fact that the spot Inspection was carried out by the respondent for 22 days and the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use notice, the impugned assessment orders have been passed. 12. Section 75 (5) of the Central Goods and Service Act, 2017, which is in pari materia with Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, reads as follows: "75(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings." 13. It is clear from the aforementioned section that the respondent has got the power to grant further time to reply to the show cause notice if sufficient cause is shown by the dealer (assessee). The provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he show cause notice and as seen from the impugned assessment orders, a fair hearing was also not afforded to the petitioner. 15. The Single Bench judgment of the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dated 26.10.2013, passed in W.P. (MD). No.2194 to 2199 of 2013 in the case of Tvl.Steel Mart Private limited Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 16. The tax demand under the impugned assessment orders almost works out to Rs. 1 Crore (Rupees One crore). After giving due consideration to the same, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must be put on terms before the impugned assessment orders are quashed. 17. Accordingly, the petiti....