Allowed

M/s.Goel Steel Company, v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC13 Apr 2017WP/9018/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 13.03.2017. The Court found that the orders were non-speaking, failed to address detailed objections, and were passed without a personal hearing, violating natural justice. The orders were quashed and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions allowed; impugned orders of assessment set aside; matter remanded to Assessing Authority to pass afresh within 4 weeks after personal hearing.

M/s.Goel Steel Company, Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

Writ Petition No.9018 and 9019 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.9936 and 9937 of 2017

¶7

M/s.Goel Steel Company, Rep. By its Partner Sanjay Goel, No.89A, M.T.H.Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058. .. Petitioner in both W.Ps.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Pattaravakkam Asst. Circle, No.127, Yadhaval Street, Padi, Chennai 600 050. .. Respondent in both W.Ps.

¶10

Common Prayer:Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN:33120060990/2013-14 and TIN:33120060990/2014-15 dated 13.03.2017 respectively and quash the same as illegal, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jayachandran in both W.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh in both W.Ps. Government Advocate

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶15

The petitioner is one and the same in both the writ petitions. They are aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 13.03.2017 passed in respect of the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶16

3.Heard both sides.

¶17

4.The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Assessing Authority has passed the orders of assessment without considering the detailed objections raised by the petitioner and without giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, it is contended that the orders of assessment violates the principles of natural justice.

¶18

5.The learned Government Advocate, though submitted that the petitioner was put on notices before passing the orders of assessment, is however, not disputing the fact they were not given personal hearing.

¶19

¶20

6.I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this court.

¶21

7.In respect of the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Assessing Authority has issued revised notices dated 30.012017 to the petitioner, with the proposals as indicated therein. The petitioner, on receipt of such notices, has given their objections/reply dated 14.02.2017. Receipt of such objections is not disputed and on the other hand, the same has been referred to in the impugned orders itself. It is further seen that the petitioner, after making detailed objections on each issue, has also sought for personal hearing through the said objections itself. However, the Assessing Authority has rejected those objections by a single line observation stating that for the reversal of ITC under Tamil Nadu VAT Act, there is no one to one correlation method. Except making such observation, the Assessing Authority has not made any discussion on the objections made by the petitioner on each issue and given his independent finding on the same. Apart from the above said lapse, it is also evident that the personal hearing is not given to the petitioner inspite of asking for the

¶22

¶23

same.

¶24

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

¶25

vri

¶26

8.Therefore, this court is convinced that that impugned orders,

¶27

apart from being a non speaking one, are also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of assessment are set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to pass orders of assessment afresh, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and considering their objections. This court makes it very clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the claims made by the petitioner on the assessment, as it is for the Assessing Authority to consider and decide the same. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

13.04.2017

¶29

Speaking/Non Speaking Index: Yes/No Note :Issue copy on 20.04.2017. vri The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

¶30

¶31

Pattaravakkam Asst. Circle, No.127, Yadhaval Street, Padi, Chennai 600 050.

¶32

W.P.Nos.9018 and 9019 of 2017

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.Goel Steel Company, v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Goel Steel Company, 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

P.Muthuraman Vs The District Prohibition

Tvl.Abarna Pharmacy, Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Spahi Projects Pvt. Ltd., rep. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Sheela Foam Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Vista Tele Services Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Rajeev. B. Mehta Vs The Commissioner