Partly allowed

M/s. Thadey Leather Company v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC11 Mar 2016WP/9268/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed a commercial tax assessment order passed without considering objection forms and without an opportunity of personal hearing, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration after affording personal hearing and considering objection forms.

M/s. Thadey Leather Company Vs The Commercial Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.9268 of 2016

¶6

and W.M.P.No.8235 of 2016

¶7

M/s.Thadey Leather Company,

¶8

rep by its Partner T.Faizan Ahmed,
No.55, Vepery High Road,
Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Vepery Assessment Circle,
No.10, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Joint Commissioner (CT),
PAPJM Buildings, Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition 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 TIN:33240524778/2013-14 dated 18.12.2015 and consequential proceedings in TIN:33240524778/2013-14 dated 03.03.2016 and to quash the same and further direct the 1^st respondent to redo the assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard and considering the objections and records filed along with the representation dated 30.01.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, Additional Government Pleader(Tax)

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in TIN:33240524778/2013-14 dated 18.12.2015 and consequential proceedings dated 03.03.2016 and to quash the same and further direct the 1^st respondent to re-do the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard and

¶12

considering the objections and records filed along with the representation dated 30.01.2016.

¶13

2.It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the petitioner producing all the Forms along with the objections, the respondent had passed the impugned order without considering the same.

¶14

3.Mr.S.Kanmanai Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) taking notice for the respondents submitted that since the impugned order has been passed by the 1^st respondent without considering the Forms produced by the petitioner and the objections filed by them and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the 1^st respondent may be directed to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶15

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the 1^st respondent had passed the impugned order without considering the Forms produced by the petitioner and also the objections raised by them and also without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1^st respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh by taking into consideration the objections and Forms produced by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

¶22

The Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, No.10, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶23

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

¶24

The Joint Commissioner (CT), PAPJM Buildings, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate, S.R.No.15933

¶26

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(T), S.R.No.15985

¶27

W.P.No.9268 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.8235 of 2016 MSM(CO) CA(22/03/2016)

¶28

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

M/s. Thadey Leather Company v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Thadey Leather Company v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Rukmani Agencies Vs The Appellate Assistant

M/s.K.K.Poly Colour India Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl. East Coast Bearings, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

G.Annadurai, Vs The Transport Commissioner

N.Vinayagam, Vs The Regional Transport

M/s.Techno Therm Industries Vs The Check Post Officer