In this writ appeal, the Madras High Court disposed of the matter after noting that the single judge had directed the appellate authority to consider the merits. The court observed that the authority must weigh merits and cannot decide solely on limitation grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.06.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Writ Appeal (MD) No.906 of 2016
M/s.Visalakshi Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor R.Srithar, 8, East Nappalayam Street, Madurai. ...Appellant/Petitioner
-Vs-.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Munichalai Road Circle, Madurai. ... Respondent/Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 11.04.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.6970 of 2016.
Prayer in WP(MD). 6970/ 2016 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records in TIN 33584961177/2013-14 dated 16.2.2015 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the judgment of this Honble Court reported in the case of Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs. Assistant Commission (CT), Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2015)82 VST 457 and further direct the respondent to afford a opportunity of personal hearing and consider the relevant records and thereafter to pass order afresh.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J )
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.6970 of 2016 which
2
is decided on 11th April 2016. In paragraph '4' of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is pointed out that the factual controversy can be better resolved by the petitioner by approaching the appellate authority.
appellant is that if any appeal is preferred, it is beyond the limitation period as the time provided by the statute has already expired.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
TO
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Munichalai Road Circle, Madurai.
+1 cc to M/s.S.Karunakar, Advocate in SR.No.27377 +1 cc to The Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 27389
gsr
CSL/SKS-RR/13.06.2016 : 2p/4c
Writ Appeal (MD) No.906 of 2016
01.06.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ appeal lies against a single judge's order directing the competent authority to consider the merits of an appeal on the merits without deciding it solely on limitation grounds.
What directions this Court gives to the competent authority regarding the consideration of limitation in an appeal filed by the taxpayer.
M/s. Visalakshi Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor R.Srithar
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Munichalai Road Circle, Madurai
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
S.S. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court