(Prayer in W.P.No.38919 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 vide the Impugned Notice bearing No.33540701153/2011-12 dated 19.08.2025 and quash the same, and further direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the directions of the Respondent No.3.

In W.P.No.38924 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 vide the Impugned Notice bearing No.33540701153/2012-13 dated 19.08.2025 and quash the same, and further direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the directions of the Respondent No.3.

In W.P.No.38929 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 vide the Impugned Notice bearing No.33540701153/2013-14 dated 19.08.2025 and quash the same, and further direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the directions of the Respondent No.3.

In W.P.No.38933 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 vide the Impugned Notice bearing No.33540701153/2014-15 dated 19.08.2025 and quash the same, and further direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the directions of the Respondent No.3.

In W.P.No.38937 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 vide the Impugned Notice bearing No.33540701153/2015-16 dated 19.08.2025 and quash the same, and further direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the directions of the Respondent No.3.)

Common Order:

1. By this common order, all these writ petitions are being disposed of.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the 2nd Respondent by issuance of impugned Notices dated 19.08.2025 to the petitioner for the respective assessment years 2011- 2012 to 2015-2016.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the contents of the impugned Show Cause Notices seeking to revise the assessment for the aforesaid Assessment years pursuant to the remand orders dated 06.04.2023 of the Appellate Commissioner.

4. The petitioner had earlier suffered assessment orders, which were the subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Commissioner. After the Appellate Commissioner passed the order, the petitioner contended that the respondent had included certain portions in respect of other items while demanding tax. Consequently, the petitioner filed applications seeking rectification of the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner.

5. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Commissioner dismissed the rectification applications filed by the petitioner by order dated 15.11.2019. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.1305, 1309, 1311, 1314 & 1318 of 2020 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 09.03.2023, wherein it was held as under:-

                   “13. The fact that such submissions were on his record when the appellate order was passed is not in dispute and hence in my considered view, the order would attract the provisions of Section 84 of the Act dealing with power to rectify an error apparent on the face of record. This power would bind assessing, appellate and revisional authorities and thus non-consideration of the additional submissions made on 23.01.2019 would give rise to an error in order dated 03.05.2019.

                   14. The petitioner sought rectification under Section 84 that has come to be rejected by the officer on 15.11.2019 on the ground that there was no discussion in the order dated 03.05.2019 and hence no rectifiable error. This conclusion of the appellate authority is clearly contrary to law insofar as the very non-consideration of submissions dated 23.01.2019, would constitute an error apparent on record liable to be rectified under Section 84 of the Act. In light of this, the impugned orders need to be set aside.

                   15. The petitioner will appear before the appellate authority on 24.03.2023 at 10.03 a.m. with materials in support of the requrest of rectification and without anticipating any notice afresh for the hearing scheduled as aforesaid. After hearing the petitioner, orders shall be passed on the Section 84 application within a period of four weeks from the date of personal hearing as fixed aforesaid.

                   16. Impugned orders are set aside and these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

6. Pursuant to the order of the aforesaid order passed by this court, the Appellate Commissioner, namely the third respondent passed separate orders for the respecive assessment years on 06.04.2023. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the order dated 06.04.2023 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-2012 is re-produced below:-

                   ...As the correctness of these turnovers have to be verified and the turnover of the product “ Tang” has to be arrived and assessed separately and to assess the turnover of other products, “ Halls, Bytes and Cocoa” at appropriate rates and to arrive at correct tax demand, tax payment and balance/excess of tax, which are to be done by the Assessing authority and as per the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 63 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 the Appellate Authority is not entitled to go into the mertis of the facts and records which were not produced before the assessing authority, but produced before it fro the first time, the matter is remitted to the Assessing authority. The Assessing authority is directed to issue fresh notice to the Appellant, upon which the Appellant is directed to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing authority. The Assessing authority is directed the verify the documents produced by the Appellant and arrive at the correct turnover of “Tang” and assess this turnover at 12.5% from 01.04.2011 to 11.07.2011 and at 14.5% from 12.07.2011 to 31.03.2012 and assess the rest of the turnover pertaining to “Halls, Bytes and Cocoa” and arrive at correct tax liability and pass order in accordance with the law and after providing reasonable opportunity to the Appellant. With these directions, the order of the Assessing authority levying tax at 12.5% / 14.5% on the turnover of Rs.70,36,34,039/- is set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal is remanded.

7. The impugned notices were issued in compliance with the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the third respondent / Appellate Commissioner. The impugned revision notices, the respondent has taken a view that the assessment order can be overlooked and that it would be open to the Assessing Officer to arrive at different conclusion within the framework of law.

8. Relevant portion of the impugned notice dated 19.08.2025 pertaining to the Assessment year 2011-2012 which is similar for all the Assessment years in dispute, is re-produced below:-

                   “In light of the above, I am not inclined to adopt the reduced rate of tax at 4% for the period from 01.04.2011 to 11.07.2011 and 5% from 12.07.2011 to 31.03.2012 on the sales of Halls, Bytes, and Cocoa, as directed by the Appellate Authority, since there are no specific findings indicating that the rate of tax originally adopted by the Assessing Officer (12.5% / 14.5%) was erroneous on required rectification under law. The Appellate authority must have sufficient reasons to direct the Assessing authority to a particular sense in a remand order. Otherwise, the remand order will be open for any conclusion by the Assessing Officer within the frame work of law.

                   (b) “ Halls” should be classified as Medicine and subject to a tax rate of 4% / 5% under Part B of Schedule-1 of TNVAT Act 2006.

                   Under the above claim, the company has contended that “Halls” should be classified under Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006, supported by a detailed analysis relating to drugs and medicines, particularly Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines. This claim has been examined with the connected records.

                   With regard to the sales of your produces “ Bytes “ and “ Cocoa,’ it is observed that the Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to levy tax at 4%/5% without providing any discussion, findings, or identification of the relevant entries under which these products are liable to tax as per the TNVAT Act, 2006. This is contrary to the original assessment order for the year 2011-12, wherein the Assessing Officer classified the turnover appropriately, and the First Appellate Authority had also sustained the said levy. Furthermore, your letter did not furnish any reply or discussion regarding the classification of these products.’

                   In view of the abvoe facts and findings, the following proposals are made for the year 2011-12;

                  

9. The second respondent is not competent to issue the impugned notices contrary to the remand order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the third respondent dated 06.04.2023, as it would clearly amount to a violation of the directions issued by the 3rd Respondent / Appellate Commissioner in the aforesaid remand order.

10. In this regard, reliance is placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T.433.

11. Therefore, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. However, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to conclude the proceedings pursuant to the remand order dated 06.04.2023 of the 3rd Respondent in terms of the notice dated 07.06.2023, for the respective assessment years. This shall be without prejudice to the right of the respective parties to file an appeal against the order of the Appellate Commissioner dated 06.04.2023 in the manner known to law.

12. The 2nd respondent shall endeavour to pass an order as expeditiouly as possible, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is also granted to the respondent to issue a supplementary Show Cause Notice strictly in accordance with the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the third respondent / Appellate Commissioner.

13. These writ petitions are allowed with the above observations. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps are closed.