KUMARAN TRADING COMPANY Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Both writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner, a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,1959, (TNGST Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The orders impugned in these Writ Petitions are assessment orders for the assessment years 2001-02 & 2002-03, which are revision of assessment under Section 16 of TNGST Act.

(3.) The petitioner was served with notices dated 07.06.2004 and 07.06.2004 respectively for both the assessment years and they submitted their objections dated 13.09.2004. After considering the objections, the respondent has passed the impugned orders, this Court need not labour much to go into the aspects as the Court had occasioned to consider the correctness of the assessment for the year 2003-04 in respect of the petitioner's dealer in W.P.No.14851 of 2005. There is not much difference in the facts leading to the said assessment and the present impugned assessment and the only subtle difference being that for the impugned assessment, the respondent, Assessing Officer did not disbelieve the entire transactions done by the petitioner, but has disbelieved the transactions, where Mr.Mahendra Kumar Jain was held to be responsible for those transactions. In other words, in the assessment for the year 2003-04, which was impugned in W.P.No.14851 of 2005. the Assessing Officer has disbelieved all the transactions including the transactions made by the petitioner with the Government of India company, like Steel Authority of India etc. Therefore, the decision rendered 14851 of 2005, dated 03.10.2016, would equally cover in the case on hand . In the said case also, the reason for issuing a pre-revision notice was statements and records from the third parties and certain records which were collected from them. The petitioner wanted the copies of the statements and they wanted to examine those process, so as to establish that the purchases effected by them, were genuine transaction. A case was sought to be projected that, they are registration cancelled dealers and the transaction effected by the petitioner is not entitled for being considered for availment of Input Tax Credit.