Allowed

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

Madras HC21 Nov 2017WP/4187/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226, issuing a Writ of Certiorari to quash an impugned order dated 06.01.2012. The matter was remanded to the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order applying relevant guidelines from earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash the impugned order dated 06.01.2012; matter remanded to pass fresh assessment order.

M/S. Venkatachalapathy Sago Vs the Assistant… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 21.11.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

Writ Petition No. 4187 of 2012 and M.P.No. 1 of 2012

¶6

M/s. Venkatachalapathy Sago Factory,

¶7

rep. by its Proprietor V.Natesan

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem Rural Circle, No.5/2, 1^st Floor, East Street, Mayor Nagar, Peramanoor, Salem -7.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Prayer:-

¶13

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TNGST 2700084/2005-2006 dated 06.01.2012 and to quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh

¶16

Government Advocate (Taxes) O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.S.Ramanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶18

The learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent submits that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, in the case of Ponni Sago Factory Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Salem & Ors, reported in [(2007) 5 VST 223 (Madras)].

¶19

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

¶20

Thus, following the aforesaid decision, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the respondent to pass fresh assessment order by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the cases of i) Kalyani Oil Mills Vs. State of Madras reported in [(1973) 32 STC 542 and ii) Madurai Soft Drinks (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in [(1985) 60 STC 94], which were followed in the decision rendered in Ponni Sago Factory (supra). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sd/msm
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Salem Rural Circle,
No.5/2, 1 st Floor, East Street,
Mayor Nagar, Peramanoor,
Salem -7.
+ 1 cc to Mr. Special Government Pleader Sr.83103
+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Ramanathan, Advocate SR.83126
Writ Petition No. 4187 of 2012
PVS(CO)
EU(30/01/2018 )

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

The Southern India Mills Vs The Additional Secretry

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

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

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

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