Disposed

M/s.Pure Chemicals Co. v. The Commissioner of Commercial

Madras HC23 Mar 2016WP/10868/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of a writ petition filed by a chemical company seeking a refund or set-off of excess entry tax paid under Tamil Nadu legislation. The Court directed the Commercial Taxes authorities to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representations and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks.

M/s.Pure Chemicals Co. Vs The Commissioner of Commercial — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.10868 of 2016

¶6

M/s.Pure Chemicals Co.,

¶7

rep by its Proprietor M.Ponnuswami No.32, H-Block, 15^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 010.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2009, 30.07.2014 and 01.10.2015 with respect to TNGST No.1060204 for refund of excess entry tax paid under Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2001 with interest or to adjust / set off the said excess entry tax paid by the petitioner for its commercial tax liability under TIN:33531060204.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Cibi Vishnu, Additional Government Pleader(Tax)

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2009, 30.07.2014 and 01.10.2015 with respect to TNGST No.1060204 for refund of excess entry tax paid under Tamil Nadu Act 20 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2001 with interest or to adjust / set off the said excess

¶16

entry tax paid by the petitioner for its commercial tax liability under TIN:33531060204.

¶17

2.It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of their representations dated 18.07.2009, 30.07.2014 and 01.10.2015, the respondents have not considered the same and passed orders so far.

¶18

3.Mr.Cibi Vishnu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) taking notice for the respondents submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders in accordance with law within the stipulated time.

¶19

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 18.07.2009, 30.07.2014 and 01.10.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶21

of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶22

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

va To 1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 010. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate, S.R.No.18816

¶25

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Taxes), S.R.No.18623

¶26

W.P.No.10868 of 2016

¶27

CA(CO)

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CA(01/04/2016)

M/s.Pure Chemicals Co. v. The Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Pure Chemicals Co. v. The Commissioner of Commercial

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

K.Kanagaraj Vs The District Collector

Tvl. Mertho Constructions, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s. Pulkit Metals Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

Tvl. First Med Therapeuties Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

Tvl.Thangam Agencies Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Muthian Sivathanu Vs Nalini Muthuian