CHEMECH LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST No. 1421877/2004 -05 and quash the impugned order dated May 19, 2006 and further direct the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the objections dated April 21, 2006 and the details filed along with the objections dated April 21, 2006.

(2.) IN spite of repeated cautions made by this Court as to the nature of the assessment framed by the assessing officers, the callousness with which the assessments are made has not stopped. The impugned assessment order is yet another example for the same.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner/assessee that on receipt of the notice by the petitioner, as required in the notice, objections dated April 20/21, 2006 have been delivered to the respondent, but however in the assessment order dated May 19, 2006, it is stated by the assessing officer that a notice was issued to the dealer on April 7, 2006 calling for objections to the above proposal. The dealer has received the notice on April 11, 2006 and raised no objection till date. Thus confirmed the proposal and levied tax in a sum of Rs. 21,88,453 as against the tax paid by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 1,61,916 and surcharge in a sum of Rs. 1,09,404 as against a sum of Rs. 1,292 paid by the assessee and thus the assessing officer has come to the conclusion that there is a balance of Rs. 20,26,537 towards tax and Rs. 1,08,112 towards surcharge. Not stopping with that, the assessing officer has also imposed a penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 at 150 per cent both for the tax as well as the surcharge in a sum of Rs. 32,03,912. That order is now challenged before this Court on the ground that the entire process of framing the assessment is against the statutory provisions. The objections filed by the petitioner and received by the assessing officer have not at all been taken into consideration and the assessment has been framed as if no objections have been filed, which is factually incorrect.