Allowed

Sri Krishna Electricals v. Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC13 Jul 2017WP/9229/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as they were passed without a personal hearing, violating natural justice. The matter was remanded to the authorities to redo the assessment after providing the petitioner a chance to object and appear for a hearing. Writ petitions were allowed with 15 days time to submit objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Sri Krishna Electricals Vs Deputy Commercial Tax — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.9229 & 9230 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.10164 & 10165 of 2017

¶6

Sri Krishna Electricals, Rep. By its Properietor, N.Kirupa, No-11, TGD Complex, Marakkanam Road, Tindivanam. ... Petitioner in both WPs.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, O/o.Deputy Commercial Tax Office, Tindivanam. ... Respondent in both WPs.

¶9

Prayer in W.P.No.9229 of 2017: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pending on the file of the respondent in relation to the Petitioners TIN No.33974722585/2015-2016 vide order under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act dated 16.08.2016 and consequential impugned order rejecting the petition under section 22(6) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act praying for reassessment vide order dated 17.03.2017 and quash the same as being arbitrary; ultra vires; ex-facie illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

¶10

Prayer in W.P.No.9230 of 2017: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pending on the file of the respondent in relation to the petitioners TIN No.33974722585/2014-2015 vide order under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act dated 18.08.2016 and consequential impugned order rejecting the petition under section 22(6) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act praying for reassessment vide order dated 17.03.2017 and quash the same as being arbitrary; ultra vires; ex-facie illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balamurugane (in both Wps.)

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, (in both WPs.) Additional Government Pleader

¶14

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶15

Heard Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. With the consent on either side the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal.

¶16

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, 2006 (TNVAT Act), has filed these writ petitions challenging the orders of assessment dated 16.08.2016 and 18.08.2016 respectively for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15 respectively and the order rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act. The impugned order of assessment dated 16.08.2016 and 18.06.2016 have been passed under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act.

¶17

Before going into the merits of the assessment, it has to be seen as to whether the order has been passed in compliance with the procedure required to be followed under the provisions of the TNVAT Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment orders. That is sufficient to hold that the orders are in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶18

4.This Court, having been satisfied that the orders of assessment are in violation of principles of natural justice, does not feel it necessary to examine the correctness of the orders dated 17.03.2017, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, as the assessment has to be redone.

¶19

5.For the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is granted 15 days time to submit his objections to the notice dated 23.06.2016, and on receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment. No costs.

¶20

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

¶21

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr/pbn
To
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
O/o.Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Tindivanam.
+1cc to Mr.V.Balamurugane, Advocate SR.49208
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.45446
W.P.Nos.9229 & 9230 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.10164 & 10165 of 2017
GJII(CO)
GN(03/08/2017)

¶23

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

Sri Krishna Electricals v. Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna Electricals v. Deputy Commercial Tax

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.Indrakumar Trading Vs Commissioner

Dr.L.Subramanian Vs the Income Tax Settlement

G.Manjula, Vs The District Collector

M/S.Tribology India Limited Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Robo Garments, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Micro Tech Cnc Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)