Allowed

The Camera Citi, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC3 Sept 2014WP/23632/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order addressed jurisdictional errors in tax assessment proceedings where TIN numbers were misapplied between two sister concerns. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh proceedings with the correct TIN numbers.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; Impugned orders set aside; Matters remitted to respondent to initiate proceedings with correct TIN numbers.

The Camera Citi, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

W.P. Nos. 23632 to 23635 of 2014

¶6

¶7

M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶8

The Camera Citi rep. By its Proprietor, M. Peter, NO.54, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 96. ..Petitioner in all the writ petitions

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC), Royapettah – I Assessment Circle, Chennai – 28. ..Respondent in all the writ petitions

¶11

Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Proceedings TIN 33730721855/07-08, TIN 33730721855/08-09, TIN 33730721855/09-10 and TIN 33730721855.10-11, each dated 27.05.2014, respectively (the petitioner's correct TIN No. is 33070720860) and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

¶12

For Petitioner :: Ms.R. Poornima

¶13

For Respondent :: Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, Addl. Govt. Pleader (T) O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petitions challenging the revised assessment orders for the years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard Ms. R. Poornima, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice for the respondent.

¶17

Without going into the merits of the case, it is seen that there is a mix up of TIN numbers. There are two sister concerns, one by name, CAMERA CITI and another, by name, CAMERA CITI PURCHASE. The TIN numbers have been misapplied due to an error apparent on the face of the record. It is sufficient to set aside the orders and remit the matters back to the respondent.

¶18

Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the respondent. It will be open to the respondent to mention the correct TIN numbes and initiate proceedings in accordance with law. No costs. Connected M.Ps are closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
Dated:10.09.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nv
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC),
Royapettah – I Assessment Circle,
Chennai – 28.
+1cc to Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes) Sr 41597
+4ccs to M/s.R.Poornima, Advocate Sr 41308 to 41311

¶20

MSM(CO) km/11.9.

¶21

W.P. Nos. 23632 to 23635 of 2014

¶22

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

The Camera Citi, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Camera Citi, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Vs Additional Superintendent

Smt.Chandrabai, Vs The Income Tax Officer

R.Sulochana, Vs The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance

M/s. Pothys, Vs The Inspector General of

A.Rani Vs The Superintendent

Madhavi Vs Government of Tamilnadu