CHEVRO LEATHER MANUFACTURERS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed original petition before the Tribunal praying to call for the records of the first respondent to examine the returns filed by the petitioner, grant a real and effective opportunity to produce the records to prove the correctness and completeness of the returns filed and thereafter call for the objections and pass assessment order taking into consideration the circular of the second respondent in circular dated October 8, 2001 in Lr. Acts. Cell I/20470/01 in light of the order of the apex court in C.A. No. 3956 of 1999 Beardsell Insulations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu decided on August 30, 2001Supreme Court. That original petition stands numbered as this writ petition on being transferred to the file of this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the original petition is that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, for the assessment year 1999 -2000 the petitioner paid tax as per the returns. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased raw materials against form XVII and thereafter exported it to the foreign countries. During the relevant period as there was some unrestment in the petitioner's factory, the petitioner was not able to concentrate on the assessment proceedings. It appears that an assessment order dated January 31, 2002 has been passed. The correctness of that order is canvassed by filing the original petition before the Tribunal which stands numbered as this writ petition, on the premise that in the notice dated July 3, 2001 there is no reference for exemption of penalty as imposed in the impugned order and the assessment order has not been served, as required under the provisions of Rule 52 of the Act and relied on so many decisions. But, however, it is seen from the impugned order of assessment that prior to passing of the impugned order, on July 3, 2001 a proposal inviting objections of the petitioner was served on the petitioner on August 28, 2001. The petitioner did not file any objections. Again the respondent issued another reminder on January 17, 2002, which also met with the same fate. The proposal contained in the notice dated July 3, 2001 was therefore confirmed.

(3.) WHAT is impugned is an assessment order. The petitioner, instead of assailing the assessment order before the Tribunal, ought to have done it before the statutory appellate authority, as the assessee has an equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal to the authority prescribed under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and a second appeal to the Tribunal under Section 36 of the Act.