Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the first respondent. Heard both. In view of the limited nature of relief that this Court deems fit, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal without ordering notice to the second respondent.
2. The learned Government Advocate submits that since the impugned assessment order is a detailed order, he would require time to get instructions and oppose maintainability of the writ petition, as the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Cuddalore.
3. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have entertained the request made by the learned Government Advocate. But, on a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Assessing Officer virtually abdicated his statutory powers and acted in a haphazard manner, which has prompted this Court to dispose of this writ petition by passing the following order :
4. The petitioner is a civil works contractor and a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has been awarded a contract for construction of power plant at Chidambaram. The first respondent issued the notice dated 11.6.2015 pointing out various defects.
5. This Court proposes to consider only two issues, which have been pointed out in the notice, as, with regard the other issues, the petitioner can very well avail the remedy under the Statute, since it requires adjudication into facts. The issues, which this Court proposes to consider, are as follows :
(i) rejection of claim of exemption on payments to sub-contractors;
(ii) estimated sales turnover on purchase omission.
6. In the notice dated 11.6.2015, the first respondent stated that as per Rule 8(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules 2007, a person, claiming exemption on payment to sub-contractors, has to produce evidence that such amount was accounted for by the sub-contractors and furnished the same in the monthly returns before the respective Assessing Officers. With regard to purchase omission, the first respondent stated that on verification of the monthly returns filed by the petitioner on the the input tax credit claimed with reference to other dealers as per Annexure II (sales made by other dealers), there are several omissions on the purchase effected and proposed to tax the petitioner on those transactions.
7. The petitioner submitted their objections dated 07.8.2015 to the notice dated 11.7.2015. Again, the first respondent sent another notice to the petitioner dated 30.9.2016. Once again, the petitioner sent their reply dated 15.12.2016, which, on a prima facie reading, shows that it is a very detailed objection.
8. With regard to the first issue, namely payment to sub-contractors, the petitioner stated that out of 18 sub-contractors, whose names have been mentioned therein, they enclosed records in respect of 14 sub-contractors, for which, exemption has been claimed under Rule 8(5)(c) of the said Rules. In respect two sub-contractors, namely Tvl.Rukmani Infra Project Private Limited and Tvl.Vishvakarma Engineering, the petitioner stated that they are registered dealers on the file of the first respondent and that their returns may be verified by the first respondent himself. In respect of the remaining two sub-contractors, the petitioner requested time, as details are awaited.
9. Unfortunately, the first respondent did not consider the objections in a proper perspective nor assigned any reasons as to why they are not acceptable. With regard to the first issue, the first respondent stated that in respect of the proposal for rejecting the claim of exemption on payments to sub-contractors, the dealers are not able to furnish details in complete shape and that the proposal has been properly made. With regard to the second issue, the first respondent merely stated that the reply is not satisfactory.
10. Time and again, this Court is pointing out that an order devoid of reasons is liable to be set aside. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
(i) Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785];
(ii) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector [reported in 2012 (4) SCC 407]; and
(iii) Orient Paper Mills Limited Vs. Union of India [reported in 1978 (2) ELT J. 345;
and the decision of this Court in the case of Floor Fixers Vs. CTO [W.P. Nos.20364 to 20366 of 2016 dated 02.8.2016].
11. The above referred to decisions, if applied to the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the impugned assessment order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
12. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, the findings rendered by the Assessing Officer in respect of (i) rejection of claim of exemption on payments to sub-contractors and (ii) estimated sales turnover on purchase omission, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration. With regard to the other issues, it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under the provisions of the Statute. The first respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment under those two heads by passing a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.
10.11.2017 Internet : Yes To The Commercial Tax Officer, Chidambaram-I.
RS T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS WP.No.28684 of 2017& WMP.No.30873 of 2017 10.11.2017 W.P.No.28684 of 2017 and W.M.P.No. 30873 of 2017 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
The matters have been posted today (02.02.2018) under the caption 'for being mentioned'.
2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitions had disposed of by permitting the petitioner to avail the remedies provided under the Statute.
3.However, since it is submitted by the learned counsel that the direction to return the original impugned order does not find place in the certified copy of the order, as found in the signed order, Registry is directed to return the original impugned orders after retaining photostat copies.
02.02.2018 kak/maya T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
kak/maya W. P. No.28684 f 2017 Dated : 02.02.2018