Quashed

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. v. Commissioner of Commercial

Madras HC11 Dec 2017WP/34338/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in these writ petitions, allowed the petitions and quashed a notice dated 24.10.2007 proposing to levy service tax on the 'Lays' brand. The order held that since the underlying governmental clarification which justified the proposal had been quashed by a Division Bench, the respondent could not revise the assessment relying on it.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 24.10.2007 is quashed; no costs.

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Vs Commissioner of Commercial — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.34338 to 34340 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2007

¶6

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Wellington Plaza, 90, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Petitioner in all W.Ps.

¶7

Vs. 1.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶8

Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶10

2.Assistant Commissioner,

¶11

Fast Track Assessment Circle-I,

¶12

Office of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), PAPJM Building, Greams Road,

¶13

Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶14

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent containing the impugned notice dated 24.10.2007 bearing Ref TIN:33030560541/2006-07 issued by the second respondent, quash the same as illegal as without jurisdiction.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Raman

¶16

Heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶17

2.These writ petitions have been filed challenging a notice dated 24.10.2007, issued by the second respondent proposing to levy service tax at 12.5% on the brand of 'Lays' (branded potato chips). The reason for such proposal is on the ground of a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶18

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

¶19

dated 29.03.2007. The petitioner filed a separate writ petition viz., W.P.No.23824 of 2007 challenging the clarification, which was dismissed by order dated 09.07.2007. As against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal in W.A.No.551 of 2009, which was allowed by judgment dated 10.11.2009, and the clarification was quashed. Since the Hon'ble Division Bench has quashed the clarification, the respondent cannot revise the assessment by relying upon the said clarification.

¶20

3.These writ petitions are allowed accordingly and the impugned notice is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
abr
To
1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Tamil Nadu,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Fast Track Assessment Circle-I,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner (CT),
PAPJM Building, Greams Road,
Chennai-600 006.
+1 CC to Mr.V.P.Raman, Advocate sr 82950.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 88337.
W.P.Nos.34338 to 34340 of 2007

¶22

KJI(CO) SP(02/01/2018)

¶23

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

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. v. Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. v. Commissioner of Commercial

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.Vee.Vee.Clearing and Vs The Commissioner of

All Omni Bus Owners and Vs Dr.Niranjan Mardi

Coimbatore Road Contractors Vs Dr.C.Chandramouli, I.A.S.

Sri Gurunathar Textile Mills Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The Southern Textiles Limited, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Shri Ghishulal R.Jain Vs Customs and Central Excise