Remanded

M/s. Jmn Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC7 Mar 2016WP/29592/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order under the TNVAT Act that failed to consider a petitioner's Rectification Application due to lack of receipt. The matter was remanded to the respondent to decide afresh upon production of the application copy. (51 words)

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration upon submission of the Rectification Application.

M/s. Jmn Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.29592 of 2015

¶6

and M.P No.1 of 2015

¶7

M/s JMN Distribution Pvt Ltd., represented by its Director, No.1/556, Karthikeyapuram, 2nd Cross Street, Chennai -91 .... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Amaindakarai Assessment Circle, Chennai - 600 010

¶10

..... Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in impugned Order in TIN No.33251025826/2013-14 dated 28.05.2015, quash the same as violtive Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and violative of Circular No.7/2014 (BB1/3589/2014) dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and against the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass orders in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of being heard.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in impugned Order in TIN No.33251025826/2013-14 dated 28.05.2015, quash the same as violtive Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and violative of Circular No.7/2014 (BB1/3589/2014) dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

¶13

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

¶14

and against the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass orders in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of being heard.

¶15

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.05.2015, for the reason that the Rectification Application, filed under Sec.84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, was not considered by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the Rectification Application dated 08.09.2015, which has been enclosed in the typed set of papers at Page No.43, was sent to the respondent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due Card on 10.09.2015. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the Rectification Application was not considered by the respondent, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶16

Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the respondent did not receive the Rectification Application, alleged to have been sent by the petitioner, on 10.09.2015. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that in the event of the petitioner furnishing one more copy of the Rectification Application before the respondent, the respondent may be directed to consider the same and decide the matter afresh.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the impugned order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the Rectification Application, filed under Sec.84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 dated 08.09.2015 before the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on production of the Rectification Application dated 08.09.2015, the respondent is directed to decide the application, on merits and in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Amaindakarai Assessment Circle, Chennai - 600 010

¶23

- 1 cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.14535

¶24

W.P.No.29592 of 2015

¶25

RSY(CO)
Eu 17.03.16

¶26

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

M/s. Jmn Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Jmn Distribution Pvt. Ltd. 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

M.Nagamuthu Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing

R.Sankara Narayanan, Vs The Union of India

M/s.Atchaya Engineering Pvt., Vs The Additional Commissioner

S.Kolanchiyappan Vs The Regional Transport

M/s.Hitachi Home and Life Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

G.Dinesh Vs The Transport Commissioner