R. Mahadevan, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
(2.) These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the respondent in TIN. No. 33092842821/2011 -12, 2013 -14, C.S.T. No. 781373/2012 -13, 2013 -14 and TIN. No. 33092842821/2012 -13 respectively dated 6.10.2015.
(3.) 1 The petitioner is a registered dealer in edible oil and assessee on the files of the respondent herein. On 13.08.2013, an inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, during which time, the proprietor was not available. Based on the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials, impugned orders of assessment came to be passed. According to the petitioner, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner was that the petitioner should have produced the books of accounts before the Enforcement Wing Officials and not before the assessing authority. 3.2 According to the petitioner, immediately on receipt of the pre -assessment notices dated 11.02.2014, detailed replies along with month -war statement showing proof of CST sales turnover, exempted turnover, balance sheet, purchase turnover and the amount of VAT paid as well as CST sales tax amount paid and corresponding ledger folio including declarations in support of their claim for exemption under CST Act were filed on 25.02.2014. However, without considering the same, simply stating that the proposal contained in the notices is hereby confirmed, the assessment orders came to be passed, which are violative of principles of natural justice. 3.3 Further, according to the petitioner, insofar as the assessment year 2011 -12 is concerned, even after request for perusal of books of accounts, the respondent was not inclined to peruse the same by stating that they should have produced the books of accounts before the Inspection Officials and therefore their request is not accepted. Likewise, for the assessment year 2012 -13 also, assessment was completed on the ground that the petitioner should have produced the books of accounts before the Enforcement Officials and not before him. Insofar as order passed under CST Act for the assessment year 2013 -14 is concerned, confirmation of proposal was made on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the declarations and related documents and therefore, the claim of exemption on consignment sale transaction was disallowed. According to the petitioner, the respondent, being a quasi judicial authority, is expected to consider the objection and enclosures before passing the impugned orders of assessment. Hence, the impugned assessment orders are nothing but confirmation of VSI -3 proposal. Aggrieved over passing of the assessment orders, the petitioner is before this Court.;