Disposed

Le.Viser Pharmaceuticals(P) v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC21 Apr 2017WP/9697/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a registration certificate. Finding a representation pending for restoration, the court directed the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax to consider the representation after a hearing within two weeks rather than quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to consider the representation dated 05.04.2017 and pass orders after giving due hearing opportunity within two weeks.

Le.Viser Pharmaceuticals(P) Vs The Assistant… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.No.9697 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.10683 & 10684 of 2017

¶8

Le Viser Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.S. Elangovan, No.52/2, I and II Floor, Patel Road, Perambur, Chennai-600 011.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, (Circle), Sembium (C) Assessment Circle, No.15 & 16, Maligai Avenue, Villivakkam, Chennai-600 049.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the cancellation of Registration certificate bearing TIN No. 33401061585 granted to the petitioner (Tvl.Le Viser Pharmaceuticals) by order dated 24.01.2017 of the respondent in so far it is against the petitioner and to quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s. C.Mohanraj For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner.

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that before cancelling the registration, the petitioner was not put on notice. On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned order would show that a notice dated 26.09.2016 was sent to the petitioner before passing the impugned order on 24.01.2017.

¶19

When the matter was taken up for admission on 20.04.2017, learned Government Advocate took time to get instruction. Accordingly, today, the matter is taken up for further hearing.

¶20

Learned Government Advocate, based on instruction, submitted that apart from sending the notice through e-mail, the same was sent by registered post also to the petitioner and the same was received by them on 03.10.2016. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner cannot allege that they were not put on notice.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are not aware as to whom such notice was served.

¶22

In any event, as it is seen that the petitioner has made a representation before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Chennai Central, seeking for restoration of the registration, it is for the said

¶23

¶24

authority to consider the said request and pass orders on the same. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Chennai Central, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2017 and pass orders on the same after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be done by the said official within a period of two weeks from the date

¶25

of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the said official is not made as a party respondent in the writ petition, Registry is directed to mark a copy to the said official. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions

¶26

are closed.

¶27

21.04.2017

¶28

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No vsi/rkp

¶29

Note : Issue order copy today

¶30

¶31

The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-II, LTU, Mashall Road, Chennai -8

¶32

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Chennai Central, Chennai.

¶33

¶34

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

¶35

vsi

¶36

W.P.No.9697 of 2017 and

¶37

W.M.P.Nos.10683 & 10684 of 2017

¶38

21.04.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in

Le.Viser Pharmaceuticals(P) v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Le.Viser Pharmaceuticals(P) 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

M/s.Pranav Foundation Private Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Mr.N.Lenin Kumar, Vs The District Collector

S.Balamurugan, Vs The Collector

Tvl.Arcot Auto Mobiles, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

A.Perumal, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

G.Kamatchi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer