Allowed

Tvl.Lego Marbles v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC27 Jan 2017WP(MD)/1317/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside a commercial tax order proposing tax reversal and penalty. The court allowed the writ petition, permitting fresh proceedings only after the petitioner pays 25% of the demanded tax and ensures a personal hearing is granted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded with condition to pay 25% tax within two weeks before fresh proceedings with personal hearing.

Tvl.Lego Marbles Vs the Commissioner of — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P(MD)No.1317 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2017

¶6

Tvl.Lego Marbles, Rep. By its Proprietor, M.Micheal Lego ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶7

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Office, No.1/22, Thilagarpuram, Main Road, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District – 627 401. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN No.33325622957/14-15, dated 29.04.2016 and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Veeramanikandan For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN No.33325622957/14-15, dated 29.04.2016 and to quash the same.

¶12

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent issued a notice proposing to reverse ITC to levy tax under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and to levy penalty under Section 27(3) of the said Act. According to the petitioner, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ levy of tax under Section 12 of the said Act does not arise and penalty is also not attracted. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of

¶13

¶14

personal hearing under Section 27(4) of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶15

3.Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner is in arrears of huge amount, they may be directed to pay a portion of the amount in the event of the impugned order is being set aside and fresh opportunity is being given to the parties.

¶16

4.Having regard to the submissions made on either side and accepting the case of the petitioner, I set aside the impugned order, dated 29.04.2016 and permit the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner paying 25% of the tax demanded by the second respondent in the impugned order, dated 29.04.2016 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the second respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law and the petitioner shall give his explanation to the notice to be issued by the second respondent and after the receipt of the reply, the second respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶17

5.With these above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶20

/True copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶24

O/o.The Principal and Special Commissioner of

¶25

Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶26

Chennai – 600 005.

¶27

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

¶28

Ambasamudram Assessment Circle,

¶29

Commercial Taxes Office,

¶30

No.1/22, Thilagarpuram, Main Road, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District – 627 401.

¶31

¶32

sm:RSK:06/02/2017:2P/3C

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.1317 of 2017 27.01.2017 3/3

Tvl.Lego Marbles v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Lego Marbles v. the Commissioner of

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

K.S.Palanisamy Vs Renganath

K. Thangam Vs Subburaj

T.G.Sankaranathan Vs K.B.Sanji Reddy

K.S. Sivanathan Vs Principal Chief Conservator of

C.Subash Pandaram Vs the Chirman

M.Sivakumar, S/O.a.Muniandi, Vs the District Collector