Dismissed

M/S.Eureka Systems and Electro v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC17 Jul 2017WP/38889/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court held the petition not maintainable, directing the petitioner to submit objections to the authority before it passes a speaking order on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner granted 30 days to submit objections; authority directed to afford hearing and pass speaking order.

M/S.Eureka Systems and Electro Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 17.07.2017

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam

¶6

W.P.No. 38889 of 2004
and
W.M.P. No. 46429 of 2004
M/s. Eureka Systems and
Electronics (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
K. Chandrashekar,
No. 11/15-A, Selvarajapuram,
Chinthamanipudur,
Coimbatore – 641 103.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to
Government,
Commercial Taxes and
Religious Endowments,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Commercial
Tax Officer, Palladam.

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

The State of Kerala, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue. Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala State.

¶11

The Union Territory of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in CST No. 750340/2000-2001 dated 12.11.2004 quash the same and further direct the second respondent to consider the Form F Declaration with proof of despatch of the goods filed by the petitioner under section 6A of the CST Act, 1956 and pass appropriate orders in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., reported in 134 STC 473.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr. S. Rajasekar

¶15

For respondents : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

Heard Mr. S.Rajasekar, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

petitioner, and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, the learned

¶21

Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the second respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and engaged in the manufacturing of welding electrodes goods. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12.11.2004. The said proceeding

¶23

is only a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to submit their objections within the stipulated period.

¶24

The allegation in the impugned notice is that, CST sales have

¶25

been camouflaged as branch transfer and consignments sales, and therefore, the second respondent has proposed to revise the assessment made under the CST Act, for the year 2000-01, and also proposed to levy penalty.

¶26

According to the petitioner, the scope of interference in these

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

matters has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of

¶30

(Ashok Leyland Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another) reported in (2004) Vol 134 STC 473 and beyond that scope, the Authority is not justified in re-assessing the concluded assessment.

¶31

I am of the considered view that, the impugned proceedings,

¶32

being only a show cause notice, the petitioner should appear before the Authority and submit their objections and produce necessary records, in support of their case. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such notice. It is only the question of interpretation as to what are the documents, which can be examined by the Authority, while revising the assessment, and what can be done by him and what cannot be done by him. All these pleas have to be raised before the second respondent by submitting objections, and not by way of this Writ Petition.

¶33

For the reasons stated herein above, the Writ Petition is held to

¶34

be not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The

¶35

petitioner is granted 30 days' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

¶38

order to submit their objections, after which, the second respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a speaking order on merits

¶39

and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

17.07.2017
sd
Index : Yes/No
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Taxes and
Religious Endowments,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Commercial
Tax Officer, Palladam.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Department of Revenue,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The State of Kerala,
Department of Revenue.
Tiruvananthapuram,
Kerala State.
5. The Union Territory of India,
Department of Revenue, New Delhi.