12.Though such a stand has been taken in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the third respondent refers to an alleged application dated 18.01.2007, showing the name of three of the petitioner’s brothers and two of their spouses omitting the name of the petitioner. It is not known as to why the third respondent did not obey the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Whoever the officer in charge at that point of time is liable to be proceeded departmentally. It is not known as to whether the Department has taken action. But, however, since the Assistant Commissioner is a party to this writ petition, the Court directs the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate action against the erring registering authority, who functioned at the relevant point of time, who disobeyed the direction issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 16.02.2017. It is not known as to how when an application in Form D submitted in 1986 was very much available in the records based on which the dealer was treated as a partnership concern consisting of four partners could have been ignored and fresh applications could have been accepted in the same name and a fresh TIN number was allotted. There is something more than what meets the eye and the petitioner is, therefore, well justified in naming the few officers alleging that they have colluded with his brothers. It is not known as to whether any departmental action was initiated against those officers, though the Commissioner in his letter addressed to the petitioner dated 03.02.2017 stated that enquiry is being conducted by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Trichy.
