Disposed

Tmt.v.Suganya Devi v. the Asst. Commissioner of

Madras HC1 Mar 2016WP/31773/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court fixed a six-week timeline for the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to settle outstanding dues to the petitioner's firm regarding services rendered and pass orders on merits. The writ petition was disposed of after issuing this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

Tmt.v.Suganya Devi Vs the Asst. Commissioner… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.31773 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

V.Suganya Devi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, No.1, Vallalar Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore – 607 001. 2.The Chief General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli – 607 203. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.09.2013 and settle the dues outstanding to the petitioner's partnership firm “R.S.V. Constructions” for the services provided to the 2^nd respondent from 2007 without reference to the service tax dues of the husband of the petitioner to the respondents within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Seshadri For Respondents: Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy (R1) Mr.N.Nithianandam (R2)

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2013 and settle the dues outstanding to the petitioner's partnership firm “R.S.V. Constructions” for the services provided to the 2^nd respondent from 2007 without reference to the service tax dues of the husband of the petitioner to the respondents within a reasonable time.

¶11

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

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2013 and pass orders within a stipulated time.

¶13

3.Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking note of the fact that the petitioner's representation given in the year 2013 has not yet been disposed of by the 1^st respondent, I direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2013 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. The 1^st respondent is also directed to communicate the order passed in the petitioner's representation to the petitioner.

¶15

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, No.1, Vallalar Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore – 607 001.

¶17

2.The Chief General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli – 607 203. +1cc to Mr.N. Nithianandam, Advocate, S.R.No.13369 +1cc to Mr.K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.12993 +1 cc to MR. P. Seshadri, Advocate sR.12998

¶18

RSY(CO) EU(31/03/2016)

¶19

W.P.No.31773 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶20

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

Tmt.v.Suganya Devi v. the Asst. Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.v.Suganya Devi v. the Asst. Commissioner of

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.Jagannathan Vs Devanandam

M/s.Labindia Instruments Pvt. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Thiru.S.Sakthivel, Vs The Appellate Deputy

S.Karthikeyan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M/s.Sri Kanniamman Cotton Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

L.Venkat Kumar, Vs The District Collector