Allowed

T.Chokkalingam, v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC16 Feb 2016WP(MD)/3052/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed writ petitions to quash assessment orders passed under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, directing the tax authority to reassess the matter on merits upon the petitioner's deposit of Rs.2,50,000 as a condition precedent, citing the petitioner's physical infirmity and bona fides.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 28.12.2015 are set aside, and matters remitted to the authority for fresh assessment under Section 22(4) upon deposit of Rs.2,50,000 by 10.03.2016.

T.Chokkalingam, Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.02.2016 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)Nos.3052 to 3054 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2684 to 2686 of 2016

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.3052 of 2016: T.Chokkalingam

¶6

... Petitioner in all the Writ petitions Vs.

¶7

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil Rural, Mead Street, Nagercoil 629 001, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

... Respondent in all the Writ petitions

¶9

Prayer in all the W.Ps.: The Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings on the file of the respondent in TIN No.33356125740/2012 – 2013, 33356125740/2013 – 2014, 33356125740 / 2014- 2015, dated 28.12.2015 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 03.12.2015 filed under Section 22(6) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, together with returns filed and pass fresh assessment order on merits.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Azeem For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, AGP

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

These Writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in TIN Nos.33356125740/2012 – 2013, 33356125740/2013 – 2014 and 33356125740 / 2014- 2015, dated 28.12.2015 and consequently, directs the respondent to consider the applications of the petitioner filed under Section 22(6) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 along with returns filed and pass fresh assessment order on merits.

¶13

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶14

3.The only grievance of the petitioner is that the assessment is made under Section 22(4) of the Act. As he was seriously suffering from paralysis and bed-ridden, the activities of the business was maintained by his father-in-law. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ though the tax was paid, the proper return has not been submitted within the time.

¶15

¶16

4.In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2010(35 VST 277 (Mad.) (Sri Mounika Traders Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Perundurai) and would contend that as per the said judgment after completion of the assessment under Section 22(4), the assessee was entitled to apply to the Assessing Authority along with correct and complete return under Section 22(6)(a) of the Act. However, the respondent has passed the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in order to show the bona fide, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.2,50,000/-, in respect of all the three years' assessment, even though the petitioner has paid the tax. He also submitted that the order of assessments may be remitted back to the authority concerned for reassessment after the payment of the bona fide amount.

¶17

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would contend that it is not an assessment under Section 22(4) and it is an assessment under Section 27(3). Therefore, it is barred by limitation.

¶18

6.On a careful consideration of the entire order of assessments, the order itself clearly states that it is passed under Section 22(4) and therefore, Section 22(6)(a) would apply. Taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner was suffering from paralysis and bedridden and the petitioner is ready to pay 25%, which comes to Rs.2,50,000/- of the total demand tax in respect of all the three years and also taking note of the judgment of this Court reported in 2010(35) VST 277 (Mad.) (cited supra), the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 10.03.2016. On such deposit is being made, the concerned authority will reassess the tax under Section 22(4).

¶19

7.In the result, the Writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders and the matters are remitted back to the authority concerned for fresh orders. The payment of money is a condition precedent. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil Rural, Mead Street, Nagercoil 629 001, Kanyakumari District. +3 ccs to Mr.M.Azeem, Advocate, SR.Nos.9055,9054 and 9053 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.9459

¶26

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

¶27

RL/6C/NGM/SS/3/3/2016

¶28

W.P.(MD)Nos.3052 to 3054 of 2016 16.02.2016

T.Chokkalingam, v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Chokkalingam, v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

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

V.Vinupandian @ Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector

N. Palaniappan Vs the Chief Manager

A. Kanimozhi, Vs the Superintendent

N.Palani Vs the District Collector

R. Muthu Vs the District Collector

M/S.Udhayam Super Market, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer