Allowed

M/s.Deepak Fertlizers & Petro v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC3 Apr 2017WP/42014/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition challenging assessment order passed under Tamil Nadu VAT Act. Held that respondent failed to prove service of show cause notice before assessment order. Set aside impugned order and remitted matter for fresh notice and post-hearing assessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside. Matter remitted to respondent to issue fresh notice and pass new assessment order after hearing petitioner within eight weeks.

M/s.Deepak Fertlizers & Petro Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:03.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.42014 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.35956 of 2016

¶8

M/s. Deepak Fertilizers & Petro Chemical Corporation Limited

¶9

represented by Suparas Jain,

¶10

Associate Vice President (Corporate -Finance), 7, 28th Cross, Phase X,R.K.road,

¶11

Hosur - 635 109. ... Petitioner

¶12

vs.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Hosur(South),

¶14

Hosur. ... Respondent

¶15

Writ Petition filed 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 in CST.944955/2015-16 dated 19.9.2016 received on 21.10.2016 and quash the same as being violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act .

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatraman

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 19.09.2016 in respect of the assessment year 2015-16.

¶19

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

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶21

The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the order of assessment was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice since the show cause notice and order of assessment was served on the petitioner on the same day, namely, 20.01.2016. The petitioner has specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that they were not served with any show cause notice earlier to the service of the order of assessment, even though the show cause notice was dated as 11.08.2016.

¶22

The respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is contended that the petitioner is taking advantage of the nonmentioning of the date of receipt of the show cause notice at the time of serving the same.

¶23

Learned Government Advocate produced the file before this Court. A perusal of the file would show that there is no indication or proof as to on what date the show cause notice was served on the petitioner, even though the said notice was dated as 11.08.2016. The respondent has not chosen to serve the said notice through any other mode except the alleged personal service. When the petitioner has specifically asserted the non service of the show cause notice before the service of the order of assessment, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to prove such service on the petitioner. The above stated facts and circumstances and perusal of the file would show that the respondent has failed to discharge such onus. Therefore, this Court is left with no other option except to accept the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice was not served before passing the order of assessment. Consequent conclusion would be that the order of assessment was passed by violating the principles of natural justice. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of assessment is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for issuing fresh notice to the petitioner and to pass the assessment order after hearing the petitioner in person and considering their objections as well. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the assessment, since this Writ Petition is allowed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The entire exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

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

¶25

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

-Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Hosur(South),
Hosur.
+ 1 cc to Mr.C.Venkatraman, Advocate Sr.No. 19517
+ 1 cc t Special Government Pleader Sr.No.19752
W.P.No.42014 of 2016
NRII(CO)
RRI 11/04/2017

¶29

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

M/s.Deepak Fertlizers & Petro v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Deepak Fertlizers & Petro 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Suresh Babu, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl.Sri Ranga Distributors, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.Sri Ranga Distributors, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M.Chandra Vs The Regional Transport

Mrs.Rathnamma, Vs The state Transport Authority

Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)