SUJATHA JEWELLERY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed for the issuance of a writ, of mandamus, directing the second respondent to entertain the appeal on filing against the order of the first respondent in Tin No. 33373940028/2006-07 dated November 22, 2013, Tin No. 33373340028/2008-09 dated December 23, 2013, Tin No. 33373040028/2009-10 dated December 23, 2013 and Tin No. 33373940028/2010-11 dated November 20, 2013 as per section 51 of the TNVAT Act without rejecting on the ground of limitation. The issue, involved in these writ petitions are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, it has been stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The petitioner is doing business in jewellery and he has filed monthly returns as per his books of accounts and self-assessment has been made by accepting the returns for the revision of assessment years 2006-07, 2008-2009, 2009-10 and 2010-11 under section 22(2) of the Act. Subsequently, the revision of assessment was made redetermining the total and taxable turnover based on the inspection report of the Enforcement Wing Officers, who inspected the business place on August 20, 2010. The first respondent has levied purchase tax on old worn jewels effected from customers and reversed the input-tax credit on the same as pointed out in the inspection report. In addition to that, the first respondent has also added that the taxable turnover as an undisclosed one based or the report and has levied penalty under section 27(3) and (4) of the TNVAT Act. But the impugned orders were not served directly on the petitioner, but it had been received by one R. Ramakrishnan, staff of the concern and one G. Nareshkumar, manager of the concern, who have left the service without informing and handing over the orders to the petitioner. The service of the orders to the staff of the petitioner-concern was not known to the petitioner until the recovery proceedings were initiated for collection of arrears during the month of March, 2014. When the petitioner came to know the receipt of the orders by his manager and a staff, he has immediately filed rectification applications against the orders. But the rectification applications were rejected by the first respondent as not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions.

(3.) Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per rule 19(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, the order has to be served either to the dealer or his manager or his agent or the legal practitioner appointed to represent him. Here, the order was served to one K. Ramakrishnan, a staff of the concern and one G. Nareshkumar, manager of the concern, who are not authorised to represent the petitioner. Further more, they left the service without handing over the order to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has filed rectification applications, but the same were rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this court passed in an identical issue in W.P. No. 6644 of 2008, in the case of Naris Spinners Ltd. represented by its Director v. Commercial Tax Officer, wherein this court has directed the petitioner therein to file appeal against the order of assessment and also directed the appellate authority to entertain the said appeal without rejecting it on the ground of limitation.