Dismissed

M/s.Menally Bharath v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC6 Dec 2017WP/18306/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed writ petitions challenging tax appellate orders as not maintainable due to the availability of an effective alternative remedy before the Tribunal. Liberty was granted to file appeals without reference to limitation to avoid injustice, as the petition was filed within the respective limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days without reference to limitation.

M/s.Menally Bharath Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.12.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Writ Petition Nos.18306 to 18308 of 2017

¶7

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.19868 to 19872 of 2017

¶9

M/s.Mcnally Bharath Engineering Company Ltd., (Represented by its Vice President (Finance & Accounts) No.42-A, Ezhaimariamman Koil Street Muthialpet, Puducherry- 605 003

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

¶12

The Commercial Tax Officer Karaikal Assessment Circle

¶13

1^st Floor, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Administrative Complex Nagore Road, Mathagadi Karaikal- 609 602 Puducherry

¶14

2.M/s.Marg Ltd., No.81/A First Floor Maideen Palli Street Karaikal, Puducherry

¶15

3.The Commercial Tax Officer-I

¶16

2^nd Floor, Commercial Tax Complex 100 Feet Road, Pudupalayam Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry – 605 005

¶17

4.Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)

¶18

3^rd Floor, Commercial Taxes Complex 100 Feet Road, Pudupalayam Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry – 605 005

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

5.Commissioner of Commercial Tax 1^st Floor 100 Feet Road Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry – 605 005

¶22

6.Government of Puducherry Represented by its Secretary to Govt. (CT) Beach Road, French Consulate Office Puducherry- 605 001 ... Respondents

¶23

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order in Appeal No.15/CST/2015-16/AAC dated 12.06.2017 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran
in all WPs
For Respondents : Mr.T.P.Manoharan
in all WPS Senior counsel
for Mr.J.Kumaran
Govt. Advocate for R1, R3 to R6
Mr.V.J.Arul Raj for R2
O R D E R

¶25

Heard Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

and Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) for the respondents.

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

With the consent on either side, the writ petitions itself are taken up for disposal.

¶30

The petitioners are aggrieved by common order passed by the fourth respondent, namely Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Commercial Taxes Complex, Puducherry in Appeal Nos.10/CST/201516/AAC, 11/CST/2015-16/AAC and 15/CST/2015-16/AAC for the Assessment year 2015-16. As against the impugned order, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal, which is the Court of the Chief Judge of Puducherry and without resorting to such remedy, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

4.After elaborately hearing the learned counsel on either side and after carefully perusing the materials placed on record, I find that to consider the correctness of the impugned order, it would be necessary to adjudicate into the factual matrix, much of which is being disputed by the petitioner. The Tribunal, being a creature of the statute, vested with powers to appreciate and re-appreciate the evidence on record before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The remedy before the Tribunal is efficacious and effective especially in tax matters. The assessee should not be permitted to bypass the hierarchy of remedy provided under the Act, which has been provided with a certain purpose. It appears that

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

¶34

impugned order has been challenged raising various factual and legal contentions and not on technical grounds or violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this is a fit case in which the petitioner shall be relegated to avail the appellate remedy available in Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

¶35

Thus, for the above reasons, these writ petitions are held to be not maintainable. However, taking into consideration the fact the petitioner has filed these writ petitions on 12.07.2017 well within the period of limitation of filing an appeal, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal with a further direction to the Tribunal to take up the appeals without reference to limitation.

¶36

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellate Tribunal shall entertain the appeals without reference to limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

06.12.2017

¶38

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: yes/no gpa

¶39

Note: Registry is directed to return the original impugned order.

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

¶42

¶43

The Commercial Tax Officer Karaikal Assessment Circle 1^st Floor, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Administrative Complex Nagore Road, Mathagadi Karaikal- 609 602 Puducherry 2.M/s.Marg Ltd., No.81/A First Floor Maideen Palli Street Karaikal, Puducherry 3.The Commercial Tax Officer-I 2^nd Floor, Commercial Tax Complex 100 Feet Road, Pudupalayam Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry – 605 005 4.Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) 3^rd Floor, Commercial Taxes Complex 100 Feet Road, Pudupalayam Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry – 605 005 5.Commissioner of Commercial Tax 1^st Floor 100 Feet Road Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry – 605 005 6.Government of Puducherry Represented by its Secretary to Govt. (CT) Beach Road, French Consulate Office Puducherry- 605 001

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶45

¶46

T.S.SIVAGNANAM.J.,

¶47

gpa

¶48

Writ Petition Nos.18306 to 18308 of 2017 &
W.M.P.Nos.19868 to 19872 of 2017

¶49

06.12.2017

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.Menally Bharath v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Menally Bharath 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sri Kamalaganapathy Vs The Additional Director

Mr.Praveen Kumar, Vs The Commissioner of Income

M/s.Kishore Industries Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/s.Jeevan Park, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Rain Industries Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s. Madhan Agencies Vs The Commerical Tax officer