Remanded

M/S.K.G.Decorators v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC17 Apr 2014WP/8836/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court set aside an assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer as it was passed without issuing the required notice, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with a direction for the petitioner to appear before the authority before the final order is passed.

M/S.K.G.Decorators Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17-04-2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN

¶5

M/s. K.G. Decorators Rep. By its Proprietor K. Gajendran No.244, 4^th Street

¶6

Sharma Nagar, Vyasarpadi Chennai – 600 039 ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Commercial Tax Officer Washermanpet I Assessment Circle Chennai – 600 021 ...Respondent

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the assessment order of the respondent passed in CST/96975/2008-2009 dated 29.05.2013 and quash the same as illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice and contrary to the principle laid down by this Court.

¶10

By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the respondent, by which the respondent determined the tax amount payable by the petitioner.

¶12

The impugned order is challenged by the learned counsel for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner only on the ground that before passing the final reassessment order, the respondent ought to have given a notice as contemplated under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act and in the absence of

¶13

the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, fairly submitted that such notice has not been issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

¶15

In view of such submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and considering the fact that the respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner before passing the final order, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. However, it is made clear that the petitioner, without waiting for any further notice shall appear before the respondent and submit their objections, if any to the impugned order and on receipt of such objection, the respondent shall pass orders afresh on merits and in accordance with law.

¶16

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
Dated:31.07.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rsh
To
The Commercial Tax Officer
Washermanpet I Assessment Circle
Chennai – 600 021
1 CC to Mr.D.Vijayakumar, Advocate SR.No. 18737
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 18926
WP No. 8836 of 2014
PUR (CO)
PSI (04.08.2014)

¶17

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

M/S.K.G.Decorators v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.K.G.Decorators 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Annur Annamalaiyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

A.Jalaludeen Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Thuluva Vellalar Sangam, Vs R.Manthrasalam

K.G.Krishanmoorthi Vs the Sub Collector

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd, Vs Deputy Commissioner (Ct)