PALANI INDUSTRIES Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the counsel at the admission stage. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding with the proposed revision for the assessment year 1996 -97 pursuant to the show cause notice issued by him on 29.6.99. The Deputy Commissioner proposed to levy VAT on the sale turnover of Cem powder obtained out of burnt lime. The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to revise the assessment cannot be doubted and has not been disputed. Therefore, in the normal course the petitioner has to notify his objections to the show cause notice and invite the decision of the revisional authority and if he is aggrieved by the said order, petitioner can avail of the right of appeal to the Tribunal. We do not find any justification for bypassing this normal procedure. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that filing of objections would be an empty formality inasmuch as the respondent, on the basis of audit objections and the view expressed by a learned author of the book, has pre -judged the issue. On a perusal of the show cause notice, we find no warrant for this assumption. It is needless to mention that the respondent is bound to decide the matter independently without being fettered by the opinion of the audit staff or the opinion expressed by an author. It is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner the relevant decisions on the point. If such decisions are relied on the revisional authority is bound to consider the same as part of the decision -making process. The petitioner may file objections within ten days from today. The Writ petition is dismissed, subject to the above observations.