SARAVANA STORES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground which has been raised by the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that in the reply given by the petitioner, he has specifically sought for personal hearing, such opportunity was not extended by the respondent. Though the petitioner firm has given a detailed reply, the authority concerned has not considered in a proper manner. Had he been given an opportunity of personal hearing, he would have established the fact that the assessment order itself is wrong. To garner support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in (2010) 33 VST 333 (Mad) Vs. SRC Projects Private Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Chennai and another, to state that as per Section 27(3) of TNVAT Act, personal hearing is must before the order impugned in this Writ Petition. However in order to show bona fide of the petitioner firm, on their own volition, they are ready to deposit 20% of the tax demanded by the authorities, within the time stipulated by this Court.

(2.) Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered by the authorities in a proper manner and thus, he wants to sustain the order impugned in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Taking into consideration of the fact that personal hearing is must and in view of the fact that the tax liability is limited one and following the judgment made in (2010) 33 VST 333 (Mad) Vs. SRC Projects Private Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Chennai and another and the petitioner, in order to show their bona fides, voluntarily comes forward to pay 20% of the tax demanded by the authorities, the order impugned in this Writ Petition stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned on condition that the petitioner should pay 20% of the demanded tax in question, with the respondent, on or before 31.03.2016, without waiting for an order copy, failing which, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. However, on such payment being made, as directed by this Court, a personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner and the reply, if any, shall be considered by the respondent and the respondent shall pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such payment is made by the petitioner firm.