Partly allowed

M/S. Global Infonet v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC9 Nov 2016WP/9384/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court set aside the 12.5% tax rate for ink jet cartridges in favor of 4% and remanded the matter regarding multi-function printers for fresh assessment with a hearing after notice. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Assessment orders regarding ink jet cartridges at 12.5% set aside; matter remitted for fresh assessment of multi-function printers after notice and hearing.

M/S. Global Infonet Vs the Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | 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 Nos.9384 & 9385 of 2014 & MP.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014

¶6

M/s.Global Infonet Distributions Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its Director Mr.Vibu Venkat

¶7

...Petitioner Vs ...Respondent

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

¶9

(FAC), Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai-28.

¶10

PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent respectively in TIN 33490561355/2008-09 and TIN 33490561355/2009-10, both dated 06.12.2013 and quash the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2013.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, AGP COMMON ORDER

¶12

Heard both.

¶13

The petitioner, which is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, filed these writ petitions challenging the assessment orders dated 6.12.2013 for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10.

¶14

Two grounds have been raised by the petitioner. Firstly, it is contended that the pre-revision notices dated 10.9.2013 were not communicated to the petitioner to the change of address given by the petitioner to the Department. It is pointed out that the change of address was duly intimated by letter dated 12.10.2010 and received by the Superintendent of the respondent office on 13.10.2010 vide acknowledgement in the letter delivery book, apart from intimating the respondent about the change of address, the present Assessing Officer of the petitioner in the change of address was also intimated on 13.10.2010 namely the

¶15

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

¶16

Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Aminjikarai Assessment Circle. However, the respondent passed the impugned orders without an opportunity.

¶17

Secondly, it is contended that the rate of tax for ink jet cartridges and toner cartridges is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Canon India Private Limited Vs. State of TN & others [W.P.No.4042 of 2008 etc. cases dated 17.7.2013] wherein the rate of tax was held to be 4%. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings may be set aside and the matters may be remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

¶18

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that so far as the issue relating to ink jet cartridges and toner cartridges is concerned, this Court may dispose it of in the light of the said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench whereas on the issue of assessment towards multi functional printers/copiers, the petitioner should be directed to pay tax.

¶19

However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to put forth their case, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, the rate of tax fixed at 12.5% for ink jet cartridges and toner cartridges is set aside and the respondent is directed to assess the turnover at 4%. In so far as the rate of tax for multi functional printers/copiers is concerned, the petitioner is directed to treat the impugned assessment orders as show cause notices and submit their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment under the said head in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the above WMPs are closed.

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), (FAC), Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai-28.

¶26

- 1 cc to M/s. R. Kumar, Advocate Sr.64458

¶27

- 1 cc to M/s. Special Government Pleader SR.64566

¶28

WP.Nos.9384 & 9385 of 2014
and MP.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014
CNR(CO)
Eu 20.12.16

¶29

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

M/S. Global Infonet v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Global Infonet 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

Cases cited

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

Tvl.Srikumaran Spinners, Vs the Assistant Commissioner