Dismissed

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC2 Mar 2017REV.APLW/13/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of five review applications challenging a High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions. The Court dismissed the reviews due to lack of pointed errors but granted liberty to file a revision petition against the underlying assessment order within 30 days without limitation objections.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a revision petition against the assessment order within 30 days without objection on grounds of limitation.

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Vs The Assistant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.03.2017

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Rev.Appl.Nos.13 to 16 of 2017

¶7

Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, S.V.Arumugam.

¶8

.. Applicant in all the Rev. Applns'

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mettupalayam Road Circle, Coimbatore – 18.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner (Enf.) (CT), Coimbatore – 18.

¶12

... Respondents in all the Re. Applns'

¶13

Review applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w Section 114 of C.P.C. against the judgment and order of this Court dated 28.11.2016 made in W.P.Nos.40803 to 40806 of 2016

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Adithya Reddy

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These review applications has been filed to review the order and directions issued in W.P.Nos.40803 to 40806 of 2016 dated 28.11.2016. The said writ petitions were filed challenging the assessment order dated 29.07.2016. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by approaching the appellate authority. As against the said order passed in the writ petitions, the petitioner has filed the Writ Appeals and the Honourable Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the same. Now the petitioner is before this Court seeking to review the order.

¶19

Admittedly no error has been pointed out by the petitioner to

¶20

review the order passed in the writ petition. Hence, the review petition stands dismissed.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since

¶22

there is no demand raised on the part of the petitioner, it may be permitted to prefer a revision as against the impugned order dated 29.07.2016.

¶23

¶24

The request made by the petitioner is not seriously opposed by the

¶25

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

In the light of the above, all the review petitions are dismissed and

¶27

liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a revision petition against the assessment order dated 29.07.2016 and if the same is filled within a period of

¶28

30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the revisional

¶29

authority, shall entertain the same, without rejecting the application on the ground of limitation.

vsm

01.03.2017

1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mettupalayam Road Circle, Coimbatore – 18.

¶34

2.The Joint Commissioner (Enf.) (CT), Coimbatore – 18.

¶35

¶36

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

¶37

vsm

¶38

Rev.Appl.Noa.13 to 16 of 2017

¶39

01.03.2017

¶40

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

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

V.A. Purushothaman Vs E. Sundara Valli

The Official Liquidator Vs

Sulochana Cotton Spinning Vs Mageswari

Taurus Aromatics & Vs Dr.B.Chandramohan

V.Chinnasamy Vs The District Collector

The Official Liquidator Vs