Allowed

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

Madras HC22 Mar 2016WP/1400/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State passed a non-speaking order levying penalty without considering the petitioner's objections, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter with a direction to give personal hearing and decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.11.2015 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent to consider objections, give personal hearing, and decide afresh on merits.

Tvl. Mertho Constructions, Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.1400 of 2016 and WMP Nos.1177 and 1178 of 2016

¶6

Tvl.Mertho Constructions, represented by its Proprietor, New No.40, B-1, Rukmani Apartments, 2^nd Mani Road, Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020 .... petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

¶9

Adyar Assessment Circle, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 021 ... Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33960962822/2011-12 dated 12.11.2015 and quash the same as being illegal arbitrary and as having been passed without having followed the relevant provisions of law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai AGP

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33960962822/2011-12 dated 12.11.2015 and quash the same.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2015 by a non-speaking order, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, submitted that since the respondent had passed the impugned order, without assigning any

¶16

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

¶17

reason, the same can be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

¶18

Since the respondent had passed the impugned order, without
considering the petitioner's objections and without any
discussions, had levied penalty on the petitioner, the impugned
order dated 12.11.2015 is liable to be set aside and the same is
set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh
consideration. The respondent is directed to consider the
petitioner's objections and after giving due opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner, decide the matter afresh,
on merits and in accordance with law. With this observation,
the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,
connected Mps are closed.
sr
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Adyar Assessment Circle,
R.A. Puram,
Chennai – 600 021
+ 1 cc to Mr.A.Ravichandran, Advocate, SR 18434
+ 1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader(T) High Court, Madras SR 18229
msm(co)
prk31/3 W.P.No.1400 of 2016

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Mertho Constructions, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Shakila Vs The Transport Commissioner

C.Sankaranarayan @ Shankar Vs The Commissioner

R.Vasudevan Vs The Transport Commissioner

Commissioner of Customs Vs Customs and Central Excise

K.Kanagaraj Vs The District Collector

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