Disposed

M/s.Le-Shark Global LLP v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC20 Nov 2017WP/27857/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus directing tax authorities to pay interest on visible and invisible losses. The Court directed the First Respondent to pass a speaking order on the pending representation, affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing within three weeks.

M/s.Le-Shark Global LLP Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.27857 of 2017

¶6

M/s.LE-SHARK GLOBAL LLP,

¶7

Rep. By its Partner,

¶8

Mr.Anil Laxmichand Shah, SF No.245/1, Opp. Park School, Tiruppur – 641 605. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner (CT), CT Building, Dr.Radhakrihnan Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶9

2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), CT Building, Kongu Nagar, Tiruppur – 641 605.

¶10

3.The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle- II, CT Building,

¶11

Kongu Nagar, Tiruppur – 641 605. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest, visible and invisible loss amounting to Rs.1,06,32,275/- to the petitioner Firm.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab

¶14

For M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associatez

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh

¶16

Government Advocate

¶17

Heard Mr.M.A.Wahab, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With the consent on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

2.The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay interest on the visible and invisible loss amounting to Rs.1,06,32,275/-. Though the

¶19

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

¶20

petitioner's representations were received by the respondents, they were not considered and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petition to direct the respondent to dispose of the representations seeking interest.

¶21

3.However, the 3^rd respondent did not pass an order on the application, but sent an intimation to the counsel for the petitioner dated 06.10.2016 stating that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of interest. The 3^rd respondent ought to have taken up the application as if he is adjudicating the refund claim or processing a return. Unfortunately, the 3^rd respondent sent an intimation to the counsel. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the said intimation cannot be treated to be an order.

¶22

4.Be that as it may, now the petitioner has approached the 1^st respondent, by representation dated 24.07.2017, which is now pending on the file of the 1^st respondent. The 3^rd respondent has given written instruction dated 20.03.2017 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupur with a copy being marked to the 1^st respondent, in which, certain reasons have been assigned to state as to why the petitioner's claim is not sustainable. However, since the matter is now pending before the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent should take a decision on the application/representation for payment of interest and pass a speaking order.

¶23

5.In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner. The above direction shall be complied within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

6.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶26

Sgl

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Joint Commissioner (CT), CT Building, Dr.Radhakrihnan Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶30

2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), CT Building, Kongu Nagar, Tiruppur – 641 605.

¶31

3.The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle- II, CT Building, Kongu Nagar, Tiruppur – 641 605.

¶32

+1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes) in sr.no.82259
W.P.No.27857 of 2017
NR 12/12/2017

¶33

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

M/s.Le-Shark Global LLP v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Le-Shark Global LLP v. The Joint Commissioner

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

The Tamil Nadu Conservancy Vs Karthikeyan

M/S.Accord Trading India Pvt. Vs Goldie Sharma

S.Mohan Vs Tamilselvi

M/S.Maxwell Industries Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

The Southern India Mills Vs The Additional Secretry

M/s.P.K.P.Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner