Remanded

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

Madras HC1 Mar 2016WP/36240/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed without a hearing. The court set aside the impugned orders for violating natural justice and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after giving a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to 1st respondent to afford petitioner opportunity to file objections and decide afresh after personal hearing.

M/s.Sri Kanniamman Cotton Vs The Assistant… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2016

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶4

W.P.Nos.36240 to 36243 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015

¶5

M/s Sri Kanniamman Cotton Textiles (P) Ltd., rep by its Managing Director E.Rukmani, Kolathu Thottam, Devarayampalayam, Rakkipalayam Post,Avinashi, Tiruppur District – 641 654. ..Petitioner in all W.Ps Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Avinashi Assessment Circle, Avinashi, Tiruppur District. 2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Headquarters, Preventive Unit, A.T.D.Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Respondents in all W.Ps

¶6

Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in – TNGST/2080829/2003 2004, CST/294964/2000-2001, TNGST/2080829/2002 – 2003 and CST/294964/2002-2003 dated 10.09.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and further direct the 2^nd respondent to return the seized documents.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan (in all W.Ps) For Respondents: Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, (in all W.Ps) Additional Government Pleader (Tax) (R1)

¶8

Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel (R2)

¶9

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

¶10

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petitions to issue writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in TNGST/2080829/2003 – 2004, CST/294964/2000-2001, TNGST/2080829/2002– 2003 and CST/294964/2002-2003 dated 10.09.2015 and quash the same, which is against the principles of natural justice and further direct the 2^nd respondent to return the seized documents.

¶12

2.It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the request to furnish the documents, the 2^nd respondent has not furnished the documents to them, therefore, they were not in a position to file their objections before the 1^st respondent, hence, the 1^st respondent had decided the matter even without deciding the petitioner's objections.

¶13

3.On a perusal of the materials available on record, it could be seen that the 2^nd respondent had furnished the copies of 37 documents running to 2000 pages on 30.07.2004 to the petitioner, which was also duly acknowledged by the petitioner in their letter dated 29.09.2004. Now, after a lapse of more than 10 years, the petitioner again requested for copies of the documents from the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

4.Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that no document is available with them.

¶15

5.In these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given another opportunity to file their objections before the 1^st respondent with the available documents and in such a case, the 1^st respondent may be directed to decide the matter afresh.

¶16

6.Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that in the interest of justice, the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to file their objections.

¶17

7.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file their objections, the impugned orders dated 10.09.2015 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1^st respondent is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file their objections and decide the matter afresh. The petitioner is directed to file their objections with the available documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the 1^st respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the objections to be filed by the petitioner and after giving due opportunity of personal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hearing to the petitioner.

¶18

8.With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

va
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Avinashi Assessment Circle,
Avinashi, Tiruppur District.
2.The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs & Service Tax,
Headquarters, Preventive Unit,
A.T.D.Street, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
+1cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate, S.R.No.13083
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.13037
+ 1 cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate Sr 13701 (14/6/16)
AK(CO)
EU(14/03/2016)
W.P.Nos.36240 to 36243 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Kanniamman Cotton 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

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

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

L.Venkat Kumar, Vs The District Collector