Allowed

M/S.Sakar Brick Works v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC18 Jan 2013WP/1189/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's Tax Identification Number by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Court held that the cancellation order violated Section 39(14) and (15) of the TNVAT Act due to lack of proper notice and opportunity of personal hearing. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order canceling the TIN was set aside; the Writ Petition was allowed; liberty granted to the respondent to proceed afresh following due procedure.

M/S.Sakar Brick Works Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.1.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.1189 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

M/s.Sakar Brick Works, represented by its Managing Partner, No.7, C.V.Naidu Road, Thiruvallur 602 002, Thiruvallur District. ... Petitioner

¶7

The Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvallur Assessment Circle, No.174, J.N. Road, Thiruvallur. ... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Pdl 178/2012/A1 dated 25.10.2012 and to quash the same as passed contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and also violating the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondent to restore the TIN 33271721305 of the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.Aditya Reddy, Government Advocate(Tax).

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Pdl 178/2012/A1 dated 25.10.2012 and to quash the same as passed contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and also violating the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondent to restore the TIN 33271721305 of the petitioner.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Mr.Aditya Reddy, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

Petitioner claims to be an assessee under the respondent and has a valid registration certificate and that is cancelled by the impugned order forcing the petitioner to approach this court by way of certiorari.

¶14

It is stated by the respondent that on 25.10.2012, on verification by the officers, there was no business concern running in the petitioner's above said address. There was no name board as required under Rule 5(7) of TNVAT Rules 2007. Holding that the dealer was not in existence and not doing any business activities in the said registered place of business, it is stated that the cancellation notice was sent. It was returned by the postal authorities confirming the fact that the petitioner assessee was not in existence and not doing business at the address mentioned above. Accordingly, the TIN Number was cancelled by the impugned letter Pdl.178/2012/A1 dated 25.10.2012.

¶15

The primary contention of the petitioner is that there is a gross violation of Section 39(14) and (15) of TNVAT Act, 2006. Section 39(14) and (15) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 reads as follows:-

¶16

Section 39.(14) The authority granting the certificate of registration may, by order, for good and sufficient reasons to cancel, modify or amend any certificate of registration granted by it.

¶17

(15) No application for registration or for a copy or duplicate of the certificate under this Section shall be refused and no order under subsection (14) shall be made, unless the dealer concerned has been given an opportunity of being heard.”

¶18

The above provision makes it mandatory to issue notice before cancellation of registration and to give opportunity of personal hearing that according to the petitioner has not been granted.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate on instruction states that notice of cancellation was served by way of affixture on 21.8.2012 and therefore, there is proper service of notice.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The above stand of the respondent has to be rejected, as apparently the order under challenge does not show that there was affixture of notice for cancellation on 21.8.2012. Therefore, the present plea of service of notice through affixture cannot be accepted.

¶22

Furthermore, there is a gross violation of the provision under Section 39(14) and (15) of the TANVAT Act, 2006. There was no proper notice and no opportunity of personal hearing was granted. In any event, the mode of service as contemplated under Rule 19 of TNVAT Rules, 2007 has also not been followed in this case.

¶23

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside giving liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh and pass appropriate orders after following the procedure in accordance with law.

¶24

The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar.
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
ts
To
The Commercial Tax Officer,
Thiruvallur Assessment Circle,
No.174, J.N. Road,
Thiruvallur.
1 CC To Mr.P.Raj Kumar, Advocate SR NO.3066
1 CC to Spl.Government Pleader[Taxes] SR 3173
W.P.No.1189 of 2013
rsk[co]
gp/28.1

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Sakar Brick Works v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sakar Brick Works v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Anmol Rajendra Parcel Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

N.v.Rukmani Bai, Vs the Commissioner of

Jameel Trading Company Vs the Appellate Assistant

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.R.Uma Maheswari Vs the District Collector

Tvl. Supreme Industries Ltd., Vs the Authority for