Allowed

Tvl.Srikumaran Spinners, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC9 Nov 2016WP/8365/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged assessment order under TN VAT Act 2006 on grounds of violated natural justice (no personal hearing) and arbitrary levy of interest/penalty. Court allowed petition without prejudice, directing petitioner to pay 15% disputed tax. Proceedings remitted to respondent to redo assessment with personal hearing and independent consideration of objections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay 15% disputed tax within two weeks; proceedings remitted for redoing assessment with personal hearing and independent consideration of objections.

Tvl.Srikumaran Spinners, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 09.11.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.8365 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Tvl.Sri Kumaran Spinn, rep. by its Partner S.S.Devaraj ...Petitioner

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Avinashi Assessment Circle, Avinashi, Tirupur, Coimbatore District. ...Respondent

¶8

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33702080405/2011-12 dated 31.1.2014 and quash the same.

¶9

Heard both.

¶10

2.The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of assessment passed by the respondent, while exercising power under Section 27 of the said Act.

¶11

The primary grounds, on which, the petitioner challenged the impugned order are that an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted and that without there being a proposal to levy interest and penalty, the same were levied in the impugned order.

¶12

It is not in dispute that the petitioner, while submitting their objections to the revision notice, sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, which has not been afforded by the respondent. This is sufficient to hold that the impugned

¶13

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

¶14

order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, since affording an opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory, especially when there is a specific request made by the dealer to that effect.

¶15

The other aspect that could be seen is that there is no proposal either in the notice dated 24.8.2012 or in the revision notice dated 14.9.2012 for levy of interest and penalty. Thus, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, interest and penalty have been levied. This is also one more ground to set aside the levy of interest and penalty, which shall be considered afresh after notice to the petitioner.

¶16

However, considering the other reasons assigned by the respondent in the impugned order, this Court is of the view that while considering the claim of the assessee, the interest of the Revenue should be protected.

¶17

Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax and if such payment is made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner is entitled to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of 15 days therefrom. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall consider the same, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law, by independently considering the objections filed by the petitioner without solely being guided by the report of the Enforcement Wing officials. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Avinashi Assessment Circle, Avinashi, Tirupur, Coimbatore District.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.S.Raveekumar, Advocate Sr.64410

¶22

WP.No.8365 of 2014 and MP.No.1 of 2014

¶23

rsy[co] srg 07/12/2016

¶24

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

Tvl.Srikumaran Spinners, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Srikumaran Spinners, 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

P.R.Ramaraj Driving School Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Ramasamy Vs the Joint Sec to Govt of India

Siva Industries and Holdings Vs the Commissioner of Service

M/S.Ppn Power Generating Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/S.Sun Direct Tv Private Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S. Global Infonet Vs the Assistant Commissioner