Dismissed

T.P.Santosh Kumar v. Union of India

Madras HC3 Jul 2017WP/4875/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated under the Pondicherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970 against a partnership firm. The petitioner argued he was no longer a partner, but the court held the plea was misconceived given the final assessment order against the firm.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

T.P.Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.07.2017 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM. Writ Petition No.4875 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.5099 of 2017

¶3

T.P.Santosh Kumar ... Petitioner

¶4

¶5

1.Union of India Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government Government of Union Territory of Puducherry Puducherry.

¶6

2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Mahe.
3.The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue)
Mahe.
4.Mr.Sanjeevan
Son of Anandan, Proprietor
Royal Chickens, Odayoth House,
Pandakkal, Mahe. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more specifically a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 3^rd respondent relating to the impugned notice of attachment dated 09.02.2017 bearing Ref. Nil and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the tax or other arrears due in respect of M/s.Royal Chickens, bearing TIN No.34450009285.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ilanchezhiyan for M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.R.Harin Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.R.Dhanasekar O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the 3^rd respondent under the provisions of the Pondicherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970 for recovery of dues payable by Royal Chickens, the 4^th respondent.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The petitioner's case is that he was the erstwhile partner of the Royal Chickens and resigned from partnership and submitted Form B declaration on 28.09.2009. Therefore, it is submitted that no liability can be fastened on to the petitioner as he is not the partner of the 4th respondent firm. It is seen that the declaration which was filed by the petitioner was returned by the Assessing Officer assigning certain reasons by order dated 05.03.2013 and this order has become final and has not been questioned either by the petitioner or by the 4^th respondent. Therefore, the present plea raised by the petitioner apart from being misconceived is not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the order of assessment passed by the 2^nd respondent as against the 4^th respondent under the provisions of the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act against the 4^th respondent has become final and the 4th respondent or the partnership firm has not challenged those orders and allowed to attain finality. Separate revenue recovery proceedings has been initiated as against the 4^th respondent also.

¶12

3.In the light of the above facts, the plea raised by the petitioner, at this juncture, is a far fetched plea and cannot be acceded to and the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rna To

¶13

The Chief Secretary to Government Union of India Government of Union Territory of Puducherry Puducherry.

¶14

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue) Mahe.

¶17

+1 cc to M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan Advocate sr 46403

¶18

+1 cc to the Government Pleader Puducherry sr 46131

¶19

W.P No.4875 of 2017

¶20

kj(co)
aa18/07/2017

¶21

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

T.P.Santosh Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Santosh Kumar v. Union of India

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

A.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Dhanabalan Vs the Commissioner of Police

The District Collector Vs Willam David

B.Raghava Vs The Commissioner

Tvl.Royal Welding Wires Pvt. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Aqua Base Container Vs Commissioner (Appeals - I)