Remanded

M/s.Amway India Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Mar 2016WP/34342/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition filed by Amway India Enterprises challenging a penalty notice and tax notice. The Court observed that the petitioner was denied a personal hearing and set aside the impugned order and notices, remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and notices dated 23.9.2015 set aside; matter remitted to second respondent for fresh consideration after hearing.

M/s.Amway India Enterprises Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

M/s.Amway India Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.

¶6

Rep by its Power Agent Abraham Ninan Plot No.32 and 46 North Face

¶7

Sidco Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai – 600 032 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu Through its Principal Secretary Finance Department State of Tamil Nadu

¶8

Deputy Commissioner (CT)-III Large Tax Payers Unit No.34 Dugar Towers Marshal Road Egmore, Chennai-600 008 ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in the impugned order dated 23.9.2015, consequential penalty notice (Form O) dated 23.9.2015 and the consequential impugned tax notice (Form RR) dated 23.9.2015 all bearing reference TIN 33050641137/2013-14 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner specifically with respect to the issue of the petitioners product being exempted from payment of VAT.

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the of the second respondent in the impugned order dated 23.9.2015, consequential penalty notice (Form O) dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23.9.2015 and the consequential impugned tax notice (Form RR) dated 23.9.2015 all bearing reference TIN No. 33050641137/201314, to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently

¶11

direct the second respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner specifically with respect to the issue of the petitioners product being exempted from payment of Value Added Tax.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that their product being exempted from payment of Value Added Tax, therefore, the second respondent should have considered the same and passed suitable orders. Further, according to the petitioner, even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the second respondent has passed the impugned order.

¶13

Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order and the notices dated 23.9.2015 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶15

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To 1. The Principal Secretary Finance Department State of Tamil Nadu. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-III Large Tax Payers Unit No.34 Dugar Towers Marshal Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶16

+1cc to M/s.Sathish Parasaran, Advocate, S.R.No.13857 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Taxes), S.R.No.13872

¶17

W.P.No.34342 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶18

PPA(CO) CA(16/02/2016)

¶19

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

M/s.Amway India Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Amway India Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu

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/s.Focus Infra Solutions, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Farwood Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Tvl.Hotel Juha Regency, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Sri Sathyanarayana Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Thiru. S.Velusamy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s. Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Commissioner of