Allowed

Auromandal Papers and Boards v. General Manager

Madras HC12 Jul 2017WP/19801/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition for certiorari seeking to quash a tax demand notice. The court held that since the Department issued a demand notice to the purchaser five years prior, it deemed to have approved the transfer and could not subsequently demand payment from the original petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned notice was set aside with liberty to the Department to proceed against the purchaser, M.Govindaraj.

Auromandal Papers and Boards Vs General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.07.2017
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
Writ Petition No.19801 of 2004
and
W.P.M.P.No.23808 of 2004
Auromandal Papers and Boards,
rep. by its Erstwhile Managing Director,
R.Palaniswamy. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The General Manager,
District Industries Centre,
Madurai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Dindigul.
3. The Commercial Tax Officer -V,
Dindigul.
...Respondents
Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for
records, relating to the order passed by the third respondent in
his notice no.ROC/3465/04/A3, dated 17.05.2004 and to quash the
same.

¶3

For Petitioner : Mr.Md. Ibrahim Ali

¶4

For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh Government Advocate O R D E R

¶5

Heard Mr.Md. Ibrahim Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner is a Company, and the deponent to the affidavit was an ersthwhile Managing Director of the petitioner-

¶7

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

¶8

Company. The Company had been granted the benefit of Interest Free Sales Tax Deferral Scheme (IFST Scheme) and they entered into an agreement with the second respondent for a period of six years from 01.04.1992, for which, the eligibility certificate was issued on 12.03.1993. The petitioner-Company was sold to one M.Govindaraj, Son of Manickam Chettiar, and, as per the agreement for sale, the purchaser has to pay the entire dues, and this was specifically agreed to, and, it appears that part of the amount was also paid by the said M.Govindaraj. In the year, 1999, a notice was issued by the respondent/Department to M.Govindaraj and others, vide notice, dated 19.04.1999, demanding arrears of tax for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96.

¶9

Thus, the Department became aware of the transfer, and though the petitioner did not obtain prior approval from the Department, after effecting sale of the petitioner-Company, the Department became aware of it, and issued demand notice to M.Govindaraj and others, which means that, the Department deemed to have approved the contract entered into between the petitioner and the said M.Govindaraj. Further, after about nearly five years, the impugned notice has been issued, stating that the transfer of the Unit is not permissible, and the petitioner should pay the balance tax. When the Department has recognized the transfer, and issued demand notice to M.Govindaraj and others in the year, 1999, it is deemed that the Department have approved the sale transaction and the Department, therefore, should proceed with against the M.Govindaraj and others, to whom notice, dated 19.04.1999 were issued.

¶10

For the above reasons, the impugned notice cannot be given effect to against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned notice is set aside, with liberty to the Department to proceed against the M.Govindaraj and others, to whom, the notice dated 19.04.1999 were issued. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶11

To 1. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Madurai.

¶12

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

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Dindigul.

¶14

The Commercial Tax Officer -V, Dindigul.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim AG,Advocate sr.48443

¶16

+1cc to special Government Pleader sr.49128

¶17

Writ Petition No.19801 of 2004
kk(co)
ss(31/7/2017)

¶18

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

Auromandal Papers and Boards v. General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Auromandal Papers and Boards v. General Manager

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

Tvl.Dhanya Sree Precision Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.R.a.Leather Fashion, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Kcs Nadar Memorial Education Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/S Tectonics Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Aircel Cellular Ltd., Vs Central Board of Excise and

S.Rahamatulla Baig Vs the Commissioner of Income