Quashed

M/s.Compuage Infocom Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC24 Jul 2017WP/8460/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court set aside an assessment order that reversed input tax credit due to alleged non-furnishing of split-up figures. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to treat the order as a Show Cause Notice and grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity to submit detailed stock and transaction records.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order treated as a Show Cause Notice; petitioner directed to submit additional objections with stock details within one week. Respondent to hold personal hearing and pass speaking order.

M/s.Compuage Infocom Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.No.8460 of 2017 and WMP.No.9259 of 2017

¶7

M/s.Compuage Infocom Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, P.Balamurugan Nagappa Centre, No.2, Lalithapuram, Gowdiayamutt Road, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. ...Petitioner Vs

¶8

The Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah Assessment Circle, No.48, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Salai, Chennai - 600 028. ...Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 in proceedings No.TIN/33490581628/2013-14 issued by the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass fresh assessment order after taking into account the documents submitted by the petitioner on various dates.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatessh Government Advocate

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of Central Sales Act and Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is before this Court, challenging the assessment order dated 17.03.2017 for the year 2013-2014 under the provisions of Central Sales Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order directing reversal of entire input tax credit availed by the petitioner, except a marginal amount of Rs. 6,32,118/-, as the petitioner has already reversed,

¶17

solely on the ground that the details with regard to opening stock, purchase, sales, Branch Transfer and closing stock separately for local purchase, import purchases and interstate purchases are not furnished.

¶18

The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the objection given by the petitioner dated 03.02.2017 to the notice dated

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

18.01.2017 and submitted that split-up figures were furnished to the Assessing Officer. Further, the learned counsel has produced a printed

¶22

statement showing Branch Transfer register for the relevant period and also produced a copy of the endorsement made in the Letter Delivery Book from the office of the respondent to show that these documents were furnished. The said contention has also been specifically reiterated in

¶23

Ground B of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate has produced written

¶25

instructions given by the Assessing Officer along with the covering letter dated 28.06.2017, from which, it is seen that there is no specific denial by

¶26

the respondent with regard to the averments made by the petitioner that all split-up details, as sought for were furnished to the respondent. This Court is at a loss to understand as to how the assessee would be benefited

¶27

by not fully disclosing the figures, when his case is that substantial portion of transactions had been disclosed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer to establish all their transactions.

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as a Show Cause Notice and submit additional objections, enclosing the copies of statement with regard to opening stock, purchase, sales, branch transfer and closing stock separately for local purchases, import purchases and interstate purchases. The petitioner is directed to submit his objections within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of which, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and proceed to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. Till the above directions are completed, no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order dated 17.03.2017. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

24.07.2017

¶32

svki

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

¶35

¶36

The Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah Assessment Circle, No.48, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Salai, Chennai - 600 028.

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J

(svki)

W.P.No.8460 of 2017
24.07.2017

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.Compuage Infocom Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Compuage Infocom Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer

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

R.Govindan Vs Rajaram

H.a.Begum Vs Ramakrishnan

M/s.S.K.Agencies, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Malladi Drugs & Vs Assistant Commissioner - Ct

Asian Granito(India)Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Mr. Alagesan Vs The Chief Commissioner