Full order THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.4355 of 2008, 36068 of 2004, 16051 of 2005. 6.Thus, the said State Tax Officer, Mr.D.Mukunthan, suppressed vital facts regarding the collection of Sales Tax for Intra-ocular lenses, before this Court intentionally and further, mislead the Court and not defended the case of the respondents properly, as expected under law. Thus, he has committed misconduct and acted unbecoming of a public servant. 7.It is painful to pen down, even the other counsels who were present through Video-Conferencing have also not stated the facts clearly, before this Court. In view of the fact that the department official himself has not performed his duty as expected, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary actions are to be initiated against him for misconduct, acted unbecoming of a Government servant and for dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to place the said Mr.D.Mukundhan, State Tax Officer of the Commercial Tax Department, under suspension with immediate effect, by initiating disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and produce the copy of the order of suspension before this Court. 8.A probe in respect of large scale collusion in the Commercial Tax department is required as to the manner in which the cases are conducted as well as the loss of revenues to the State. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to suo-motu implead the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 9.Accordingly, the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, is suo-motu impleaded in W.P.No.4355 of 2007 as the 3rd respondent, enabling this Court to deal with the issues in an appropriate manner and effectively. Post the matter on 08.07.2021. 06.07.2021 gsa Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Note: (i) Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the Writ Petition and communicate the copy of this order directly to the 3rd respondent today itself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.4355 of 2008, 36068 of 2004, 16051 of 2005,
4563, 5830, 5831, 8396 & 9011 of 2008,
W.P.(MD).No.4527 of 2009,
W.P.Nos.21104 of 2009, 29013 to 29015 of 2011,
W.P.No.17 of 2014, W.P.(MD).Nos.5612 & 5613 of 2014,
W.P.No.29404 of 2015, 22822 & 22823 of 2016, 762 & 763 of 2017,
3802, 11345 to 11347, 13428, 15964 & 16833 of 2018

W.P.No.4355 of 2007

M/s.Appasamy Associates,
Rep. By its Partner,
No.20, SBI Officers Colony,
First Street,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai 600 106. ..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.

2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Vadapalani-I Assessment Circle,
Chennai.

3.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9. ..Respondents

Prayer in W.P.No.4355 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent issued in Lr.No.K.Dis.Acts Cell IV/58679/05 dated 02.05.2007 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant exemption on the sales turnover of “Intra-ocular lenses” both under the TNGST Act 1959 and CST Act 1956 as the above goods are generally exempt from tax as goods falling under Item 2 of Part B to the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar

For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran,
(Government Advocate)

COMMON INTERIM ORDER

These batch of Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing at 10.35 a.m. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued elaborately with reference to the facts and circumstances, as well as the provisions as applicable to the case of the petitioner. During the course of argument, this Court asked several clarifications, both from the petitioner’s counsel as well as from the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. For about 1½ hours, the hearing was in progress. Right from the beginning, the contention of the petitioner was that the general exemption is granted to the sale of Intra-ocular lenses based on the general exemption granted under Third Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 1959. This Court, specifically raised a question that whether the general exemption is made applicable in respect of sale of Intra-ocular lenses to the Hospitals and Doctors within the State. The respective learned counsels made a submission that the general exemption is granted in respect of the sale of Intra-ocular lenses within the State, more specifically, to the Doctors and Hospitals. However, the general exemption clause is not extended in respect of the sale of Intra-ocular lenses to the other States.

2.In this context, the learned Government Counsel for the respondents made a submission that there is a conditional exemption. In order to understand the facts as well as the legal provisions, this Court repeatedly and severally asked the question with the learned Government Counsel for the respondents, whether the general exemption is granted in respect of sales within the State of Tamil Nadu, more specifically if the sale is made to the Hospitals and Doctors. The learned Government Counsel answered yes. Then, this Court asked a question when the general exemption is granted within the State, how there can be a conditional exemption as far as the interstate sales are concerned. The learned Government Counsel is unable to provide answer for this. Repeated questions asked by the Court are not answered by the learned Government Counsel for the respondents. The evasive nature of arguments advanced revealed that the Government Counsel has not prepared or wantonly avoided. Under those circumstances, in order to understand the case, as the cases are pending for long years and the litigants are suffering, this Court directly interacted with the State Tax Officer, Mr.D.Mukunthan, who is present before this Court right from 10.30 a.m., onwards. This Court, specifically asked several questions and the said Officer also, in clear terms, said that the general exemption granted for sale of Intra-ocular lenses are made applicable within the State, even in the cases where the said Intra-ocular lenses are sold to the Doctors and Hospitals, in a whole sale manner. Again and again, the same question was asked because of the interpretation given in the written arguments filed by the respondents. The written arguments filed by the respondents reveal that the general exemption granted would be applicable only if the Intra-ocular lenses are sold directly to the affected persons and the exemption is not applicable in respect of the sales to the Hospitals and Doctors.

3.In view of the stand taken in the written arguments by the respondents, this Court repeatedly asked the question even by giving an example, if the Intra-ocular lenses are sold at Chennai to a Hospital, it is exempted from Sales Tax and if the very same lenses are sold to a Hospital in Bangalore, Sales Tax is collected. This Court, specifically asked a question as to how there can be two different interpretations in respect of general exemption granted under the Act. Even that question was not responded either by the learned Government Counsel for the respondents or by the State Tax Officer, who is very much present through out the hearing.

4.The way in which the said Officer answered the questions raised a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding his integrity as well as the truthfulness in making such statements. One can easily draw an inference regarding possibility of collusion with other side which cannot be over ruled. The State Tax officer is very much aware of the entire facts as well as the Sales Taxes, as applicable for sale of Intra-ocular lenses, both within the State of Tamil Nadu and for interstate sales. Inspite of the knowledge about the Sales Tax, the said Officer has intentionally made false statements and further, suppressed the facts for the purpose of misleading the Court. Actually, this Court was totally mislead, both by the learned Government Counsel for the respondents as well as the said State Tax Officer.

5.This Court heard the matter for about 1½ hours and in view of the discrepancies found in the submissions of the respective learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents, this Court directly interacted with the department official, who has also suppressed the fact intentionally and mislead the Court and believing the submissions made by all the parties, this Court started dictating the judgment in open Court. On the verge of completion of the judgment, the learned Government Counsel for the respondents said that the Sales Tax is collected in respect of the sale of Intra-ocular lenses to the Hospitals and Doctors, within the State of Tamil Nadu. This Court is absolutely shocked and painful, in view of the fact that all the parties to the litigants totally misguided this Court without informing the vital facts, where the Sales Tax is collected in respect of sale of Intra-ocular lenses to the Hospitals and Doctors, within the State of Tamil Nadu.

6.Thus, the said State Tax Officer, Mr.D.Mukunthan, suppressed vital facts regarding the collection of Sales Tax for Intra-ocular lenses, before this Court intentionally and further, mislead the Court and not defended the case of the respondents properly, as expected under law. Thus, he has committed misconduct and acted unbecoming of a public servant.

7.It is painful to pen down, even the other counsels who were present through Video-Conferencing have also not stated the facts clearly, before this Court. In view of the fact that the department official himself has not performed his duty as expected, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary actions are to be initiated against him for misconduct, acted unbecoming of a Government servant and for dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to place the said Mr.D.Mukundhan, State Tax Officer of the Commercial Tax Department, under suspension with immediate effect, by initiating disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and produce the copy of the order of suspension before this Court.

8.A probe in respect of large scale collusion in the Commercial Tax department is required as to the manner in which the cases are conducted as well as the loss of revenues to the State. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to suo-motu implead the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

9.Accordingly, the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, is suo-motu impleaded in W.P.No.4355 of 2007 as the 3rd respondent, enabling this Court to deal with the issues in an appropriate manner and effectively.
Post the matter on 08.07.2021.

06.07.2021
gsa
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes

Note: (i) Registry is directed to carry out necessary
amendment in the Writ Petition and communicate
the copy of this order directly to the 3rd respondent
today itself.

(ii) Issue order copy on 06.07.2021 (Today).

Copy to:

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.

2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Vadapalani-I Assessment Circle,
Chennai.

3.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
 
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsa

W.P.Nos.4355 of 2008, 36068 of 2004, 16051 of 2005,
4563, 5830, 5831, 8396 & 9011 of 2008,
W.P.(MD).No.4527 of 2009,
W.P.Nos.21104 of 2009, 29013 to 29015 of 2011,
W.P.No.17 of 2014, W.P.(MD).Nos.5612 & 5613 of 2014,
W.P.No.29404 of 2015, 22822 & 22823 of 2016, 762 & 763 of 2017,
3802, 11345 to 11347, 13428, 15964 & 16833 of 2018

06.07.2021