Disposed

M/S.Raj Foam v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC8 Jan 2013WP/643/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash pending tax proceedings and direct the respondent to pass a final assessment order on merits after hearing objections within four weeks. The Court directed the petitioner to submit objections within 15 days and the authority to decide within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file objections within 15 days; Respondent directed to consider objections and pass final orders within four weeks. Government Advocate to report compliance.

M/S.Raj Foam Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 8.1.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

W.P.No.643 of 2013

¶6

Raj Foam rep.by its partner no.139,Bharathi Salai,Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

¶7

.. Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Royapettah-II Assessment Circle
Chennai. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramani, Senior Counsel
for M/s.B.Raveendran
For Respondent : Mr.Manoharsundaram
Government Advocate (Tax)
ORDER

¶8

The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN 33490780672/2012-2013, to quash the proceedings dated 21.12.2012, and to direct the respondent to take up the provisional/original assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13 after passing fresh orders for 2007-08 and 2008-09 in accordance with the directions issued by the Court in W.P.No.16609 of 2009, dated 11.11.2009 and W.P.Nos.9059 and 9060 of 2010, dated 6.12.2010.

¶9

The petitioner is a dealer under the respondent and has been filing monthly returns under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for brevity, "the TNVAT Act, 2006"). The

¶10

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

¶11

monthly returns filed by the petitioner for the months from April, 2012 to November, 2012 for the sales of Poly Urethane Foam, according to the department, did not find place in any one of the schedules and, therefore, it was proposed to be treated as unclassified item taxable at 14.5% under Entry 69 of Part 'C' of the I Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006, as against the payment of 4% tax. Objections were called for in the notice which is under challenge.

¶12

The primary plea taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that earlier this Court by order dated 6.12.2010 made in W.P.No.9060 of 2010 directed the respondent/department to pass final order and no such order has been passed and therefore, these notices issued time and again is causing prejudice. The relevant portion of the said order dated 6.12.2010 reads as follows:

¶13

"5. In such view of the matter, the impugned notices stand set aside with a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders after taking note of the objections raised by the petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to make further objections for sustenance of their claims, if any. It is made clear that if the petitioners make such objections within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders, on merits, taking note of all the objections and answering the same in accordance with law. Such orders shall be passed by the respondent expeditiously, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Since the nature of the commodity has to be explained to the respondent, the respondent shall give personal hearing to the petitioners before passing such orders."

¶14

It is also the petitioner's plea that the respondent/department is keeping the matter pending for a long time and thereby prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

¶15

Heard Mr.Manoharsundaram, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondents, who states that the Court may direct the respondent to hear the objections and pass final order on merits within a time frame that may be fixed and the authority shall strictly comply with the same.

¶16

In such view of the matter, taking note of the earlier order passed by this Court and also taking note of the fact that the impugned proceedings is only a notice calling for objections, the petitioner is directed to submit objections within 15 days from today and the respondent will consider the objections and pass final

¶17

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

¶18

orders within four weeks thereafter. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) shall report to this Court the compliance of this order.

¶19

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
sasi
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Royapettah-II Assessment Circle
Chennai.
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.1459.
1 cc To Mr.B.Raveeendran Advocate Sr .1390.
W.P.No.643 of 2013
ng(co)
rtk21.01.13

¶21

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

M/S.Raj Foam v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Raj Foam v. the Assistant Commissioner

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.Krishnan Vs the State Transport

M/S.Jayaaraj International Vs the Chairman

M/S.Trans Asian Shipping Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S. Balaji Enterprises, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Dr.N.Fazulullah Vs the Assistant Director

Kumar Transport Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax