Allowed

M/s. United Metal Industries, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC3 Jun 2016WP/12720/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging assessment orders were allowed due to violation of natural justice. The order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration with direction to provide personal hearing and allow objection filing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration with direction to afford personal hearing and file objections within six weeks.

M/s. United Metal Industries, Vs The Assistant… — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.06.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.12720 to 12724 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 (5 Mps)

¶6

M/s.United Metal Industries Represented by its Partner No.98, Basin Road Thiruvottiyur Chennai – 600 019 ... Petitioner in all the writ petitions

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Kaladipet Assessment Circle 703, T.H.Road, Thiruvottiyur Chennai – 600 019 ... Respondent in all the writ petitions

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN/3372100015/2007-2008, TIN/3372100015 /20082009, TIN/3372100015/2009-2010, TIN/3372100015/2010-2011, TIN/3372100015/2012-2013 dated 18.03.2015 and quash the same as passed without authority of law and also contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶10

In all these writ petitions, the petitioner, which is a manufacturing industry, is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of five years, namely 2007-2008,2008-2009,2009-2010,2010-2011,2012-2013.

¶11

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

¶12

It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the Assessment nor does this Court proposes to undertake such an exercise for the following reason:

¶13

The petitioner received a notice from the Assessing Officer proposing to revise the assessment already made. On receipt of notice, the petitioner sent a representation on 22.02.2015. While acknowledging the receipt of notice, the petitioner stated that they have to gather all necessary documents for about four years so that they can submit their objections and therefore, requested the authority to grant extension of time by one month. This was sent by the petitioner by speed post to the Assessing Officer on 20.02.2015. Thus, to enable them to submit their objections, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 25.02.2015 and sought for the following documents:

¶14

i. Letter sent to the Deputy Commissioner / your immediate Higher Officer seeking his permission to deviate from the audit para stating that the reversal of ITC invoking Section 19(5)(c) of the TNVAT Act do not attract in our case.

¶15

ii.Any other communication in regard to the above issue either received by you from your higher officials or sent by you to your higher officials.

¶16

In this application dated 25.02.2015, the petitioner has mentioned that he has sent a letter requesting for time to submit reply to the proposal. The Assessing Officer appears to have taken into consideration the request made under the Right to Information Act as if to be a reply/objection to the proposal and has passed an impugned order. The Assessing Officer, having accepted the receipt of the application dated 25.02.2015, cannot deny the fact that the petitioner has sent an earlier letter dated 22.02.2015 requesting for extension of time by one month to submit their objections. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have either accepted or rejected the request for extension of time and then proceeded to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or proceeded with the matter or if it is presumed that he has granted one month time, though not in writing, then upto 23.03.2015, the petitioner had time to submit their objections. But, unfortunately the impugned orders have been passed well before the said date i.e., 18.03.2015. That apart, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded to finalize the assessment based on the averments made by the petitioner in the application filed under the Right to Information Act. Hence, for all the above reasons, the impugned orders call for interference.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act has been provided for on 06.05.2015 and from the information provided, it is submitted that there is no case for revision of the assessment already concluded. In any event, this issue can always be raised by the petitioner while filing their objections, which liberty this Court proposes to grant.

¶19

In the light of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.03.2015 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to file objections along with supportive documents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after which the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, verify the documents produced by the petitioner and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To

¶20

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Kaladipet Assessment Circle 703, T.H.Road, Thiruvottiyur Chennai – 600 019.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.P.Rajkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.29735 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader(T), S.R.No.29948

¶22

BVR(CO) CA(15/06/2016)

¶23

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

M/s. United Metal Industries, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. United Metal Industries, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sampasivam, Vs The State Rep.by its

M.Elangovan Vs The Additional Commissioner

M/s.The Childrens Garden Vs The Commissioner

Dr.K.Nararajan, Vs The Regional Transport

Dr.K.Natarajan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

S.Thirugnana Sambanda Moorthy Vs The Commercial Tax Officer