SOLAR TEA TRADERS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. K. Soundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondent. The petitioner is a registered tea dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, "VAT Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Act") as well as a registered buyer member with the Tea Board and is doing tea business for the past twenty years. It is stated that during the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,65,27,733 and also remitted tax at four per cent as per entry 137, Part B of the First Schedule to the VAT Act. The respondent, accepting the turnover reported by the petitioner, passed an order under section 22(2) of the VAT Act. Even during previous years, the petitioner's turnovers had been accepted and tax was paid at four per cent While so, the enforcement wing authorities conducted an inspection on December 6, 2010, found the records of Health Inspector, Bangalore; Taluk Health Officer, Tiptur, Karnataka; Director of Food Laboratory, Pune; Public Analyst, Guindy, Chennai; Local Health Authority, Viralimalai Block, Pudukkottai District; and High Court judgment in Crl. A. No. 843 of 2006, dated November 7, 2008 and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sold adulterated tea and therefore, it is a different commodity falls under the residuary entry No. 69 of Part C of the First Schedule to the VAT Act, and hence, the respondent has issued the impugned order dated December 14, 2012, proposing to revise the assessment under section 27(3) of the VAT Act, and to impose tax at 12.5 per cent According to the petitioner, the quality of the tea can be verified by the local authorities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after taking samples from the dealer and if it is found that anything adulterated is added to the natural tea, the local authorities can initiate proceedings to prosecute the said dealer and punish him and unless it was proved, it cannot be said that the tea is adulterated one. It is stated that the Health Department of Coimbatore City, Municipal Corporation, often visited the business place of the petitioner and found that the products of the petitioner satisfy the PFA standards. Hence, the impugned notice proposing to revise the assessment under section 27(3) of the VAT Act, is without any jurisdiction and against the statute.

(2.) Based on the above background pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original assessment under section 22(2) of the VAT Act has to be accepted and that when the tea sample of the petitioner satisfies the standards prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is not for the respondent now to say that the same is an adulterated coloured one and therefore, it comes under the purview of residuary entry 69, Part C of the First Schedule to the VAT Act.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate, by going through the materials annexed in the typed-set of papers and the impugned revision notice, would contend that the petitioner was originally assessed under section 22(2) of the VAT Act and when the place of the petitioner was inspected on December 6, 2010, the records of Health Inspector, South Western Railway Hospital Bangalore; Taluk Health Officer, Tiptur, Karnataka; Local Health Authority, Viralimalai; and High Court order dated November 7, 2008 were seen and it was found that the petitioner had sold adulterated tea only and therefore, it is a different commodity falls under the residuary entry No. 69 of Part C of the First Schedule to the VAT Act, and therefore, the respondent issued the impugned revision notice proposing to levy tax at 12.5 per cent, as the tea sold by the petitioner is an adulterated coloured one. The learned Government Advocate would further contend that the petitioner should have filed his objections to the proposal of the respondent instead of filing the present writ petition, which is not maintainable.