Allowed

Tvl Duet India Hotel v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC22 Nov 2017WP/27282/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order. It directed the Assistant Commissioner to afford a personal hearing, peruse documents regarding labour work and material supply exemptions, re-examine the petitioner's stand, and redo the assessment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order regarding non-deduction of TDS; directed respondent to accord personal hearing and redo assessment on merits.

Tvl Duet India Hotel Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 22.11.2017

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.27282 of 2017 & WMP.No.29130 of 2017

¶6

Tvl.Duet India Hotels (Chennai) Private Limited, rep.by Head Commercial, Kancheepuram-2. ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), No.16-A, I Floor, I Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chengalpattu-1. ...Respondent

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN No.33481607263/2012-2013, culminating in the impugned order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the respondent in respect of TIN No.33481607263/2012-2013 demanding the deduction of TDS of Rs.21,69,766/- and penalty Rs.32,54,649/- totaling to Rs.54,24,415/- for 2012-2013 and quash the same.

¶10

Heard Both.

¶11

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, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.7.2017 under the said Act for the assessment year 2012-13 in so far as it has redetermined the total and taxable turnover of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not deducted tax at source as required under Section 13 of the said Act.

¶12

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

¶13

When a proposal was made to that effect by issuing a show cause notice dated 18.5.2017, the petitioner submitted their objections dated 26.5.2017 clarifying that wherever they had not deducted tax, those transactions are items pertaining to labour work and supply of materials for the project and in respect of other transactions, they deducted tax and deposited into the treasury. To support their stand, they enclosed copies of the audited balance sheet, completion certificate, copy of the bill as well as annexure containing the list of contractors and nature of work. These objections were received in the office of the respondent on 30.5.2017, which fact has not been disputed by the respondent. However, the respondent completed the assessment on the ground that the petitioner has not filed supporting documents.

¶14

Prima facie, it is clear that along with the objections dated 26.5.2017, the petitioner had given four enclosures. The respondent has not stated that the objections did not contain enclosures. Thus, it appears to be a case where the enclosures were not examined. In the show cause notice dated 18.5.2017, the respondent afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner stating that they can appear before him on any working day at 11 AM. Though the petitioner did not specifically avail this opportunity, in their objections, the petitioner pointed out that if there is any inconsistency found/noticed, they shall stand by and cooperate in resolving the same.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this submission made by the petitioner in their objections dated 26.5.2017 would clearly show that the petitioner wanted an opportunity of personal hearing, if the respondent was not convinced with the reply given by the petitioner.

¶16

Be that as it may, when there are certain enclosures along with the objections, the respondent could have fixed the date for personal hearing instead of stating in the show cause notice that the dealer may appear on any working day at 11 AM. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer and explain their stand.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside in so far as the issue relating to non deduction of tax at source and the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing, peruse the documents produced

¶18

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

¶19

by the petitioner, examine the correctness of the stand taken by the petitioner that wherever they had not deducted tax, those transactions are items pertaining to labour work and redo the assessment under the said head on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
No.16-A, I Floor, I Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chengalpattu-1.
+ 1 cc to Ms. Gayathri, Advocate Sr.82840
+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.83321
WP.No.27282 of 2017&
WMP.No.29130 of 2017
CS-V
EU(14/12/2017 )

¶21

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

Tvl Duet India Hotel v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl Duet India Hotel 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Nandhi Spinning Mills (P) Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S. Venkatachalapathy Sago Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S. Valli Sago Factory, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Venkata Sai Ram Traders, Vs The Customs Central Excise &

M/S.Sun Gas Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Aanchal Cement Ltd., Vs M/s.Gimpex Ltd.