The petitioner challenged an order imposing tax and compounding fee following goods detention. The Court held the petitioner could approach the Revisional Authority and dismissed the writ petition without expressing views on merits.
The writ petition is dismissed without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.9255 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.10208 of 2017
Tvl. AARAA Textiles, Represented by its Proprietor, C. Ramesh, No.150/1, Vivekanandar Salai, Oppoiste North Police Station, Erode – 638 001 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chithode Assessment Circle, Erode – 9. 2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enf), (Spl), (Roving Squad), Cuddalore. ... Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in Goods Detention Notice No.1722/16-17 dated 23.03.2017 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan For Respondents: Mr.K.Venkatesh,
Government Advocate
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.03.2017 ordering the payment of one time tax and compounding fee, in pursuant to the initiation of goods detention proceedings.
"Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and in view of the similar orders passed in other writ petitions arising out of the goods detention notice, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:
a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the first respondent towards the tax imposed in the impugned notice, without prejudice to their rights, immediately on receipt of this order;
b)On receipt of proof of such payment, the second respondent shall release the goods at once;
c) The petitioner shall give an explanation before the second respondent within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;
d) On receipt of such explanation, the second respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter.
the same day. However, the petitioner has chosen to sent a reply by speed post only on 15.03.2017 which was received by the 2nd respondent on 20.03.2017. The 2nd respondent, thereafter passed the present impugned order, pointing out certain shortcomings in the documents of export sent by the petitioner through such reply dated 15.03.2017. Thus, the 2nd respondent confirmed the one time tax of Rs.2,80,000/- and the compounding fee of Rs.5,61,000/-. The correctness or otherwise of the findings rendered by the 2nd respondent on the appreciation of the documents filed by the petitioner can always be gone into by the Revisional Authority, if the petitioner is aggrieved against such findings and consequent imposition of tax and compounding fee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioner to work out their remedy before the Revisional Authority by filing appropriate revision. When this Court has already granted time to make the objection and the 2nd respondent also passed an order considering the documents filed by the petitioner sent along with the objection, it is for the petitioner to challenge the order of the 2nd respondent before the Revisional Authority by raising all the points. Therefore, I find that the present writ petition cannot be entertained, as the petitioner can agitate the matter before the Revisional Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, however, with liberty to the petitioner to file such revision before the Revisional Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
W.P.No.9255 of 2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the order imposing tax and compounding fee when the petitioner can seek revision before the Revisional Authority.
Whether the notice requiring objections and the subsequent order satisfying the requirement of issuing prior notice under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tvl. AARAA Textiles
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chithode Assessment Circle, Erode
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enf), (Spl), (Roving Squad), Cuddalore
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
