Disposed

Ramani Engineering v. the Assistant Commisisoner

Madras HC31 Jul 2015WP(MD)/13396/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of a Section 84 refund petition on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, without going into the merits of the writ petition itself.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to pass orders on the Section 84 petition on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks after giving opportunity to petitioner.

Ramani Engineering Vs the Assistant Commisisoner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.07.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.13396 of 2015

¶6

Tvl.Ramani Engineering, Rep by its Proprietor: S.Ponnambalanathan Mahalakshmi Mills Quarters, Palanganatham, Madurai. ...

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) FAC, Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to rectify his order passed in TIN 33185163448/2012-13 dated 28.11.2014 under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, pursuant to the petitioner's petition dated 19.03.2015.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan,

¶13

Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶16

2.The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent to rectify the order passed in TIN 33185163448/2012-13 dated 28.11.2014 under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, pursuant to the petitioner's petition dated 19.03.2015.

¶17

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the commodity code of the goods was not mentioned in the returns inadvertently, which the respondent also failed to consider. Hence, he prayed that it would be suffice if the petition under Section 84 of VAT Act of the petitioner is disposed of by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

4.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would fairly submit that the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 84 will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶19

5.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this writ petition, the respondent is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed to pass appropriate orders on the petition under Section 84 of the VAT Act of the petitioner, dated 19.03.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within a

¶20

¶21

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

6.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

sms Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To The Assistant Commissioner (CT) FAC, Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai. 1CC to Mr.A.Chandrasekaran,Advocate,SR.No.42828 1CC to Special Government pleader, Advocate,SR.No.43938

¶27

Writ Petition (MD) No.13396 of 2015 31.07.2015

¶28

2P/4C AM/13.08.2015

¶29

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

Ramani Engineering v. the Assistant Commisisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani Engineering v. the Assistant Commisisoner

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. Nagappa Corporation Vs the Appellate Deputy

P.Raju, S/O Panchavarnam, Vs the District Collector

V. Saran, Vs the Disrict Collector

Kalipandi Vs the Tahsildar

J.Thambi Vs the District Collector

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Inspector General of