Allowed

Apollo Tyres Ltd., Rep. by v. The Deputy Commissioner

Madras HC2 Dec 2016WP/42564/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed the direction to provide a bank guarantee for balance tax and penalty in an appeal under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a bond instead within one week to make the amount secure until the appeal is disposed of, thereby modifying the Appellate Authority's condition.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the direction to furnish a bank guarantee; directed the petitioner to furnish a bond within one week for the balance tax and penalty.

Apollo Tyres Ltd., Rep. by Vs The Deputy Commissioner — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 02.12.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P. No.42564 of 2016 and W.M.P. No.36497 of 2016

¶7

Apollo Tyres Limited, rep. by its Leader Commercial Authorised Signatory G.Balasubramaniam, B-25, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Sriperumbudur, Singaperumal koil, State Highway, Sriperumbudur-602 105.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II (FAC), Large Taxpayers Unit, 34, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Appeals), CT Annexe Building III Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the files of the second respondent herein in S.P. No.137/2016 arising out of A.P. No.106/2016 dated 02.11.2016, quashing the same in so far it relates to the direction of the second respondent to the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the balance of tax and penalty of Rs.51,21,436/-.

¶14

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad For respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard Mr.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶18

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.01.2016 passed in S.P. No.137/2016 in A.P. No.106/2016, against the order of assessment for the year 2010-11 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned order, directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the balance tax and to give security/Bank Guarantee for the remaining amount, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. This Court, in several writ petitions, has modified such conditions by directing the petitioners therein to execute bond instead of Bank Guarantee. Admittedly, 50% of the disputed tax has been paid and therefore, for the remaining amount, the petitioner shall furnish a bond within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and keep the bond alive till the disposal of the appeal by the second respondent.

¶19

¶20

3.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently,

¶21

connected M.P. is closed. No costs.

02.12.2016

Index :Yes/No vga

1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II (FAC), Large Taxpayers Unit, 34, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶26

2.The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Appeals), CT Annexe Building III Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶27

¶28

T.S. SIVAGNANAM,J.

¶29

vga

¶30

W.P. No.42564 of 2016

¶31

02.12.2016

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

Apollo Tyres Ltd., Rep. by v. The Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apollo Tyres Ltd., Rep. by v. The Deputy 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

C.Muniyan, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

G.Jayalakshmi Vs Mr.Arunachalam

M/s.Escorts Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Sree Vigneswara Marbles Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Shubhra Logistics, rep. by Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.Sonal Fashion Jewellery Vs The Assistant Commissioner