PARASAKTHI PROMOTERS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned Counsel for Mr.R.Thirumavalavan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With the consent on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is before this Court for the second time for the very same cause of action, as he has not been favoured with the appropriate orders from the respondent in spite of earlier directions in W.P.No.20527 of 2016, dated 17.06.2016. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to restore the registration certificate of the petitioner granted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and to treat the petitioner as a registered dealer from the effective date of cancellation. The petitioner's case was that without notice, he has been treated as a dealer who was doing stock business by making such an entry in the official website of the Commissioner of Tax Department. Therefore, it is contended that the cancellation of registration cannot be made without notice and even assuming an order was passed, the same cannot take effect without the order being served on the petitioner. Considering the grievance expressed, this Court by order dated 17.06.2016, directed the representations given by the petitioner to be considered and if an order of cancellation of the registration certificate has been passed and such order has not been served on the petitioner, then an authenticated copy of the said order was directed to be served on the petitioner. Unfortunately, the first respondent did not comply with the said directions.

(3.) Therefore, the Court can suo motu initiate action for contempt against the respondents. However, the Court does not propose to do so at this juncture, on account of the subsequent developments namely, passing the impugned order dated 10.04.2017. When the writ petition was heard earlier, this Court was of the prima facie conclusion that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and against the directions issued in the earlier Writ Petition. Therefore, while granting an order of interim stay, the respondents were directed to produce the file relating to the petitioner on the next hearing date. Though such a direction was issued, the files have not been produced before this Court when the matter was heard today.