Allowed

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC20 Apr 2016WP/13816/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment disposed of a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT). The Court held that the order was passed without a personal hearing, violating natural justice, and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.12.2015 set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration after notice and personal hearing.

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.13816 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.12126 of 2016

¶6

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari Stores Rep by its Proprietor Mr.M.Gunasekaran No.91, Kamarajar Street Villupuram ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Villupuram-I Assessment Circle Villupuram ... Respondent

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN.33854681135/ 2011-2012, dated 31.12.2015 and quash the same as passed contrary to the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondent to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and then pass orders in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.Manoharan Sundaram

¶10

Additional Government Pleader(Taxes)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 31.12.2015, to quash the same and direct the respondent to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ personal hearing, which is violative of principles of natural justice.

¶14

Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondent submitted that since an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and the respondent may be directed to decide the matter afresh.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing and that the respondent have also not issued a notice to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 31.12.2015, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and after receipt of the objections, shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Villupuram-I Assessment Circle Villupuram.

¶18

VGI(CO) CA(05/05/2016)

¶19

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

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari v. The Assistant Commissioner

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

R. Karthik Vs The State Transport Authority

M/s.National Dairy Development Vs Commissioner of Commercial

Dhanakotti, Vs The District Collector

S.Thangammal Vs The District Collector

G.Vaithilingam Vs The Regional Transport

M/s.Venu Residency, Vs The Joint Commissioner