S.DHANALAKSHMI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the demand notice dated 19.12.2018, issued by the second respondent in Va.Vi.No. 33114840428/2008-09.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband M.Sethuramalingam, was a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as 'the TNVAT Act, 2006'). According the petitioner, he had been regularly filing his monthly returns and the same has also been accepted by the respondents under Section 22 (2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

(3.) The second respondent proposed to revise the earlier assessment by the pre- revision notice dated 27.04.2018. According to the petitioner, her husband died on 05.06.2017, but, the pre-revision notice dated 27.04.2018, proposing to revise the assessment for the year 2008-09 was sent to the petitioner's husband, who was already dead by then. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, without affording sufficient opportunity to raise objections by the legal heirs of the deceased M.Sethuramalingam, the second respondent passed the impugned order and based on which, the demand notice, dated 19.12.2018, was also sent to the dealer, M/s.Sathya Calendars, in which, the petitioner's husband was a proprietor. The petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased M.Sethuramalingam, has challenged the impugned demand by filing the instant writ petition.