Remanded

M/s.Al Kasim Leather, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC8 Mar 2016WP/8558/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, set aside an order dated 03.07.2015 for failure to consider the petitioner's objections. It remanded the matter to the respondent for a fresh decision after an opportunity of personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.07.2015 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for a fresh decision after considering the petitioner's objections and affording an opportunity of pers

M/s.Al Kasim Leather, Vs Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

M/s AL. Kasim Leather, rep by its Partner, No.1137, Cutchery Road, Vaniyambadi .. Petitioner vs

¶6

The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Vaniyambadi Assessment Circle, Vellore District .. Respondent

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN No.33184641782/2009-10 dated 03.07.2015 and quash the same.

¶8

The petitioner had filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN No.33184641782/2009-10 dated 03.07.2015 and quash the same.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that the petitioner had filed their objections on 05.05.2015, the respondent had not considered the same and without considering the objections, filed by the petitioner, the respondent had passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

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

¶11

Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice for the respondent, submitted that since the respondent had not considered the objections, filed by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that the respondent had not considered the petitioner's objections while passing the impugned order, the impugned order dated 03.07.2015 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, taking into consideration the objections, filed by the petitioner and after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of . No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

¶13

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sr To The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Vaniyambadi Assessment Circle, Vellore District +1cc to Mr.C. Bakthasiromani, Advocate, S.R.No.14878 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.14832 EV(CO) EU(11/03/2016) W.P.No.8558/2016

¶14

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

M/s.Al Kasim Leather, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Al Kasim Leather, v. Commercial Tax Officer

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.Pratab Arumugam Vs The District Collector

K.R.Satchidanandam Vs a.M.Madharsha(Died)

M/s. Jmn Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

L.Sathya, Vs The Transport Commissioner

M/s. Crimson Metal Engineering Vs The Deputy Commerical Tax

M/s.S.N.T.Leathers Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)