ORIGINAL PRINTING PRESS Vs. SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the original petition is to set aside the orders of the third respondent in Assessment Order No. 5860004/1997 -98, dated January 18, 2001 and the order in Assessment No. 5860004/1997 -98, dated February 27, 2001 passed under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and to direct the third respondent to reopen the assessment as per the accounts produced on February 15, 2001. The facts leading to the present original petition are the following :

(2.) MR . M. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners printed bus tickets and therefore, the transactions are to be treated as works contract and not as sales. Though the assessing authority chose to issue pre -assessment notice by disallowing the exemption, the petitioners sought time to produce the accounts. Though the final hearing was fixed as December 15, 2000 the assessment order was made without giving reasonable opportunity and that the direction of the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarifying the transactions as works contract, was not followed by the assessing authority. On receipt of the final assessment order, a revised annual return was filed along with the doctor's certificate for the illness of the partner of the firm, who was in -charge of the tax matters, on February 1, 2001 with a request to reopen the assessment under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Though the assessing authority called for records on February 15, 2001 and perused the records, he passed orders on February 27, 2001, by merely stating that the assessment cannot be reopened under Section 14 of the Act. Thus, the summary order passed without giving any reasons, is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the assessment order as well as the order passed on February 27, 2001 declining to reopen the assessment under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, have to be quashed.

(3.) ON a notice of motion, the learned Government advocate has produced the assessment file. On perusing the assessment file, it is seen that the petitioners have not chosen to produce the accounts inspite of several opportunities granted. Only in that context, the assessing authority proposed to disallow the claim of exemption and to assess the petitioner on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,87,87,961. Even after the receipt of the pre -assessment notice dated March 31, 1999 on April 8, 1999, the petitioners have been seeking time to produce the accounts. In the letter dated April 13, 1999, time was sought to produce the accounts on April 30, 1999. For the notice dated August 11, 1999, because of the illness of the accountant, another date was sought. Again, for the notice dated September 8, 2000, another date was sought, because on the date of hearing, namely, September 15, 2000, the accountant would be attending the income -tax hearing. On October 5, 2000, a date in the first week of November, 2000 was sought to produce the accounts. Though the assessing authority fixed the date of hearing as November 10, 2000, again time was sought, as the accountant would be attending the income -tax hearing. Again on December 15, 2000, Mr. D. Jeyaseelan, the partner of the firm, informed the assessing authority that as the accountant was on leave, another date of hearing may be fixed. Only because of the attitude of the petitioners in seeking adjournment, but not producing the accounts, the assessing authority finally passed orders on January 18, 2001. When this best judgment assessment order was served on January 31, 2001, immediately, a return called "revised annual return" declaring the same nil taxable turnover and showing the total turnover as Rs. 1,87,64,191, was filed with the doctor's certificate stating that Mr. D. Jeyaseelan, partner of the petitioner -firm, was under medical care from December 10, 2000 to December 30, 2000 and that he was advised bed rest up to January 30, 2001. Though the assessing authority called for the accounts on February 15, 2001, on the basis of the request to reopen the assessment under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, she passed an order on February 27, 2001 by stating that the revised return filed for the year 1997 -98 could not be considered as beyond the control of the petitioner and therefore, the reopening of the assessment sought under Section 14 of the Act cannot be complied with.