WP/33251/2010 of M/s. Vee Jay Marketing, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, on 30 December 2010

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION No.33251 OF 2010

ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

The petitioner, a registered VAT dealer on the rolls of therespondent, statedly is filing monthly returns regularly. Thereturns were taken up for scrutiny with reference to the informationreceived by the check post authorities. On the allegation thatthere was a mis-match of certain purchase transactions, therespondent issued notice dated 24.11.2010 in Form VAT 203 forpenalising the petitioner. By communication dated 15.11.2010, thepetitioner sought fifteen days time to file their objections. Withoutgranting the same, the impugned order “notification and demandfor penalty to a VAT dealer” in Form VAT 203 dated 24.11.2010was issued demanding a penalty amount of Rs.7,93,103/-. This isassailed in this Writ Petition.

The matter was called in the fore-noon. As rightly pointedout by the petitioner’s Counsel, a bare perusal would reveal thatthe respondent did not give any reasons or consideration forinitiating penalty proceedings. We, therefore, directed the SpecialCounsel for the Commercial Taxes to produce the file and alsodirected the concerned officer to be present in the Court.

In obedience to our oral order, Sri V.S. Kiran Chowdary, S/oV. Ammanna, 49 years, Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle,Chaminar Division, appeared in the after- noon. After takinginstructions from him the Special Counsel for Commercial TaxesSri P. Balaji Verma submits that the officer passed a separateorder containing reasons for levying penalty and that such separate document was enclosed to Form VAT 203 sent to thepetitioner.

Prima facie, the impugned order does not disclose that acopy of the order/reasons was enclosed thereto. When weenquired again after obtaining instructions from the officer presentin the Court, the Special Counsel submitted that the file has hadbeen transferred to the jurisdictional CTO and that the samecontains the order impugned in the writ petition as well as thereasons therefor. We entertained a doubt primarily for the reasonthat the officer who was summoned to the Court did not appearwith the file. Therefore, we again issued oral directions to theSpecial Counsel and as well as his client to produce the file at4.00 p.m.

At 4.00 p.m., the file relating/bearing TIN No.28760167882has been brought and placed before the Court. A perusal of thesame would totally belie the representation made by the LearnedGovernment Pleader, on instructions, from Sri V.S. KiranChowdary, respondent C.T.O., that the reasons are annexed to theimpugned order. This, in our considered opinion, amounts tomisleading the Court and amounts to interfering with the course ofjustice by such misrepresentation of facts. We treat this as acontempt in the face of the Court.

As the impugned order is not supported by any reasons, thesame is liable to be set aside. We accordingly set aside thesame. The Writ Petition stands allowed.

We direct the Registry for the reasons in pre-paragraph toissue suo motu contempt notice to Sri V.S. Kiran Chowdary, S/oV. Ammanna, 49 years, Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle,Chaminar Division. The Contempt case shall be listed on29.01.2010.

_____________

V.V.S.RAO, J

___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J30.12.2010

MRKR