Allowed

Venkatagiri Spinning Mills v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC3 Nov 2017WP/9182/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed demand notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer alleging excess Input Tax Credit and disposal of fixed assets as they were issued without a show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The court directed the completion of assessment for relevant years after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices were quashed. The respondents were directed to complete the assessment for the relevant years after issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

Venkatagiri Spinning Mills Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.11.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. Nos.9182 to 9184 of 2009 and W.M.P.Nos.1,1, 1 1 of 2009

¶6

Venkatagiri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director C.V.Ramraj

¶7

Palladam-Pollachi Main Road Sultanpet, Palladam-T.K. Coimbatore 0 641 669. ... Petitioner in all WPs

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commercial Tax Officer Palladam ... Respondent in all WPs

¶10

Prayers: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, call for the records on the files of the respondent herein in his TIN Nos.33906240528/2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09, dated 24.04.2009 by issue a Writ of Certiorari.

¶11

Heard Mr.K.Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶12

2.The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, has filed these writ petitions challenging the demand notices issued by the respondent alleging that the

¶13

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

¶14

petitioner has availed excess Input Tax Credit and that the petitioner has disposed of the fixed assets, like Plant and Machinery and has not furnished any detail. However, I find that the impugned notices are demand by themselves and were issued without issuing a show cause notice.

¶15

3.At the time when the writ petitions were entertained, this Court granted an order of interim stay, since the impugned demand notices were issued without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. They are held to be bad in law, as it violates the principles of natural justice. These are sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned order. That apart, the assessment for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 is already over. Therefore, the respondent should necessarily complete the assessment for the year 2006-07.

¶16

4.For the above reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are quashed, directing the respondents to complete the assessment for the relevant years after issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of personal hearing. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar maya To

¶18

The Commercial Tax Officer Palladam

¶19

+1cc to Mr.N.INBARAJAN Advocate, S.R.No. 78146

¶20

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 78243

¶21

TR(22/11/2017)

¶22

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

Venkatagiri Spinning Mills v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatagiri Spinning Mills 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

Tvl.Madhu Jayanthi Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Bhavanimatha Electrical Vs The State Tax Officer

S.Arputharaj, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Sri Murugan Agency Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Empire Exports Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Asia Overseans Vs the Commissioner of Customs