AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21640 to quash the pre-reassessment Notice dated 6.7.2018. 3. By the impugned notice dated 6.7.2018 in TIN No.33175721640, the sole respondent - State Tax Officer has called upon the petitioner to reply to the said notice within 15 days. The said notice has been issued for Assessment Year 2012-13. 4. The petitioner's factory as also the petitioner's sister concern, V.R.Anbu and Brothers in which petitioner, Managing Director is a partner, they were visited by the officers from the Commercial Tax Department on 24.10.2014 and 25.10.2014. Statement from the Manager and General Manager were recorded based on the input and output ratio and based on the aforesaid statement, pre-revision notices dated 9.2.2015 were issued to the petitioner for these assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 on 09.02.2015. Similar notices were also issued to the petitioner's sister concern namely, Assessment Orders. Later Assessment Order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15. It is the subject matter of W.P.Nos.21894 & 21895 of 2022. A separate order is being passed in the above said writ petitions. The petitioner also replied to the pre-revisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the vires of Sections 51 and 58 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was concerned, it was filed in tune with the challenges made by other assessees under different VAT enactments from different High Courts. W.P.(C)No.91 of 2015 was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to challenge the constitutional validity. As far as the appeal arising out of common order of the Division Bench, dated 18.12.2015 in W.A.(MD).Nos.1372 to 1374 of 2015 is concerned, SLP (C) No.4609/4611 of 2011 was disposed with the following observation vide order dated 27.09.2015. "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should approach the statutory authority under Section 58 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. If the appeal is preferred within a period of six weeks hence, the appellate authority shall deal with the appeal on merits and not to reject the same on the ground of limitation at threshold. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of." 9. During the intergennum, the petitioner was required to file statutory appeal within a period of six weeks from the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time stipulated in the said order of the Division Bench, the appeals would be expeditiously considered and decided. In view of the time stipulation, it has to be scrupulously followed by the petitioner as well the appellate authority are concerned. But, a different interpretation is sought to be given by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is totally against the spirit of the two orders, one passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the another one passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order totally runs contra to the imports of the directions of this Court dated 18.12.2015, as well the Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 27.09.2016 referred to above. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, it is quashed. 12.Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with the appellate authority in deciding the appeals within the said period of three months as stipulated by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.12.2015. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aiah reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689. Relevant portion from the order reads as under: "31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected." (ii) State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs T.Ranganathan and others of this High Court reporeted in 2010 2 LW 273. Relevant portion from the order reads as under: 21. It is well settled in law that once a competent Court fixes an outer time limit to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three months to be dealt with one way or the other. Several adjournments were granted in this court to get the finalisation of the proceedings and in spite of repeated adjournments on each adjourned date the counsel for the Union of India has been stating that the matter would soon be finalised. When the matter is taken up today, counsel for the Union of India still indicates that no final orders have been obtained. We find that the tribunal has not quantified the claims of the employee. In the circumstances, it is difficult for us to indicate what exactly are the dues to which he has become entitled. The matter shall go back to the Tribunal for computation of the exact dues and the Tribunal is directed to do the same within three months from today, if necessary after hearing the parties. In view of the fact that mandatory direction of the Tribunal that the disciplinary proceedings which were then pending should be completed within six months and more than three years and one month have passed by now and the proceedings have not been completed, we quash the proceedings. An employee after retirement cannot be harassed by continuing a disciplinary action o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, when his retirement was due on 31.05.1995, the respondents revived the proceedings and placed him under suspension on 29.05.1995. Simultaneously another order was issued not permitting him to retire in view of the criminal investigation by Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-corruption. One Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.11.1996 but orders were not passed. Hence, he was constrained to file W.P.No.1247 of 1996 and this Court granted time to complete the enquiry within three months, which was not complied with. Thereafter, time was extended to pass a final order on the ground that enquiry shall be completed within one month. Even then no orders were passed and the second Enquiry Officer was appointed and when further time was prayed, this Court has refused to grant the same. Therefore, when once the Court has refused to extend the time for completion of enquiry, the petitioner filed the contempt petition for non-compliance of the order dated 26.11.1997 passed in the miscellaneous petition filed in W.P.No.1247 of 1996. The learned Judge, while closing the contempt petition, allowed the writ petitioner to peruse the records and submit his explanation within the period as stated in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d parcel of the earlier charge-sheet dated March 10, 1986. The fact that the charges are identical in nature is not disputed by the respondent. Similarly, the list of documents and list of witnesses relied on by the respondent for proving the charges in the second charge-sheet are also identical in nature with that of relied on by the respondent for first charge-sheet dated March 10, 1986. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the respondent, by virtue of this exercise, wants to reopen the case of departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the same set of facts and for the same misconduct which, in our considered view, is not permissible in law. 8. As we have already observed hereinabove, after June 15, 1986, the respondent lost the legal right to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by virtue of the specific order dated March 24, 1986 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.598 of 1986 and therefore, the question of starting new enquiry by fresh charge-sheet dated March 9, 1988 on the same set of charges and for the same misconduct, does not arise." (e) The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35 of 2003". (iii) Mainderjit Singh Bitta Vs Union of India and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273. The relevant portion from the order reads as under: 10. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the Government Department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... That apart, it is submitted that in the case of Madras Cements Limited, which was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was a deviation and therefore, the arbitrator was appointed. 16. Finally, the learned AAG for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had obtained an interim order, from this Court on 25.07.2018 and thereby stalled the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the respondents cannot be blamed for the delay in passing the order. That apart, it is submitted that the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the question of limitation cannot be considered in a writ petition filed for a Mandamus for a direction to appoint an arbitrator. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 17. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 18. The question of appointment of Joint Commissioner from the Commercial Tax Department to consider the legality of the Assessment Orders passed by the third respondent therein namely, the Commercial Tax Officer for the Assessment Years 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax as ordered by the Appellate 1 [Deputy] Commissioner or by the Appellate 1 [Joint] Commissioner, as the case may be; (b) under sub-section (1) of section 53, unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant to be due or of such instalments thereof as might have become payable, as the case may be, and twenty-five per cent of the difference of the tax ordered by the 1 [Joint] Commissioner under section 53 and the tax admitted by the appellant: Provided also that no appeal shall be admitted against an order, passed by the Appellate 1 [Deputy] Commissioner under section 51 or by the Appellate 1 [Joint] Commissioner under section 52, as the case may be, setting aside the assessment and directing the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment. (2) The officer empowered under sub-section (1) or the person against whom an appeal has been preferred, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal has been preferred under subsection (1) by the other party, may file within sixty days of the receipt of the notice, a memorandum of cross objections a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellate 1 [Deputy] Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 51 or an order passed by the Appellate 1 [Joint] Commissioner under subsection (3) of section 52 or by the 1 [Joint] Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 53 has been filed, any assessing authority or his representative appearing before the Appellate Tribunal may file an enhancement petition or a petition for restoration of the assessment or penalty or both, fully or partially, as the case may be, in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner against the order of the Appellate 1 [Deputy] Commissioner or the Appellate 1 [Joint] Commissioner or the 1 [Joint] Commissioner, as the case may be. The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and assessing authority or the representative of the assessing authority of being heard, pass such orders on the petition, as it thinks fit: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an enhancement petition or a petition for restoration of the assessment or penalty or both, fully or partially, as the case may be, presented after the expiration of the said period, if it is satisfied that the assessing authority or his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Orders or Revision Notice which are the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner or by the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. 21. That apart, the petitioner did not comply with the order of the Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.1372 to 1374 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015. Instead had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (C).Nos. 4609 to 4611 of 2016 along with W.P.No.91 of 2015 which was disposed on 27.09.2016. 22. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this High Court cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the context of Service Law also cannot be applied in the taxing enactments particularly where no prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of the purported delay. Delay if any, was not attributable to the department. 23. In fact, in the case of the Petitioner's sister concern M/s.V.R.Anbu and Brothers in W.P.(MD).Nos.21894 and 21895 of 2019, a separate order is being passed wherein, a similar relief was sought is being rejected. Therefore, there is no merits in W.P.(MD).No.15388 of 2018. 24. Therefore, the challenge to the Pre-Revision Notice dated 06.07.2018 impugned in W.P.(MD).No.18670 of 201....