Allowed

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

Madras HC21 Nov 2017WP/47774/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two writ petitions filed under Article 226, quashing assessment orders dated May and June 2006. The decision relied on a prior order in W.P.No.14086 of 2007, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the petitioner access to the source information forming the basis of the assessment or afford a proper opportunity to be heard before completing the proceedings under the

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions allowed; impugned orders of assessment dated 12.05.2006 and 08.06.2006 quashed and set aside; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S. Nandhi Spinning Mills (P) Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 21.11.2017 Coram

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 47774 & 47775 of 2006

¶5

and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2006

¶6

M/s Nandhi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.,

¶7

rep. by its Director N.Santhakumar ...Petitioner in both WPs

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dharapuram Assessment Circle, Dharapuram, Erode District. ...Respondent in both WPs

¶10

Prayer in 47774 of 2006: 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 3020826/1998-99 dated 08.06.2006 and to quash the same as illegal.

¶11

Prayer in 47775 of 2006: 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 3020826/1999-2000 dated 12.05.2006 and to quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner in both WPs : Mr.S.Ramanathan

¶13

For Respondent in both WPs : Mr.K.Venkatesh Government Advocate (Taxes)

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act) as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is aggrieved by the orders of assessment passed by the respondent, for the assessment years 1998-99 and 19992000, under the TNGST Act,1959. dated 12.05.2006 and 08.06.2006 respectively,

¶16

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

¶17

The learned counsels on either side submitted that, in respect of the very same assessee with regard to the assessment year 2001-02, an identical issue was considered by this Court, in W.P.No.14086 of 2007, and the Writ Petition was allowed, by order, dated 19.09.2017. At this stage, it would be apposite to quote the said order, which is as follows:-

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the respondent, dated 12.05.2006, for the assessment year 2001-02, under the provisions of TNGST Act,1959. It appears that the respondent obtained some information from the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai, and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, that the petitioner has suppressed taxable turnover, as there was unaccounted sales of Cone yarn. Notice was issued to the petitioner, proposing to assess the turnover at 4% under Section 16 (1)(A) of TNGST Act, 1959 and also proposed to levy penalty under Section 16 (2) of the said Act. The petitioner submitted a reply, which was received by the respondent on 15.03.2006 and requested for copy of the information, which is said to have been received by the respondent from the Central Excise Department. The respondent, therefore, should have provided necessary information, afforded further opportunity tothe petitioner to give their objections and then, proceeded to complete the assessment. Unfortunately, in a single line, the respondent has stated that the objections are overruled and confirmed the proposal in the notice, dated 20.02.2006.

¶20

The case on hand is a classic example, as to how, the assessment should not be completed. The respondent has clearly abdicated his statutory responsibility as an Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. ”

¶21

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

¶22

Following the above referred decision, these Writ
Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
msm/s Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Dharapuram Assessment Circle,
Dharapuram, Erode District.
+1cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.83104
+1cc to Mr.S.Ramanathan, Advocate SR.No.83125
KAN(CO)
sm:22.1.20180
W.P.Nos. 47774 & 47775 of 2006

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Venkatachalapathy Sago Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

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