Allowed

Tvl.K.R.Residency, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC21 Feb 2017WP(MD)/1566/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an impugned order proposed for tax revision and levy of penalty. The court allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the authority to consider the petitioner's objection after the petitioner deposited 10% of the balance tax.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed, matter remitted to authority, petitioner directed to remit 10% of balance tax amount.

Tvl.K.R.Residency, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2017

¶7

and WMP(MD)No.1265 of 2017

¶8

Tvl.K.R.Residency,

¶9

Rep. by its Proprietrix R.Vasugi Devi, Courtallam-627 802.

¶10

... Petitioner -vs-

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tenkasi-(C)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the respondent in TNLH No.14047/1415 dated 05.12.2016 and quash the same as illegal invalid and violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Addl. Govt. Pleader *****

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the respondent in TNLH No.14047/14-15, by which, it was proposed for revision of tax with levy of penalty.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶19

It is seen that the petitioner has filed objection and the impugned order has been passed without considering the objection filed by the petitioner in detail. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of the balance tax amount without prejudice to its rights and has filed an affidavit to that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effect.

¶20

¶21

In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the authority concerned. The petitioner, without prejudice to its rights, is directed to remit 10% of the amount to the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is made ready, preferably on or before 31.03.2017 and the petitioner shall appear before the respondent personally on 04.04.2017. The respondent, after considering the objection filed by the petitioner and hearing the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders thereafter. In case, the petitioner fails to appear, the respondent is at liberty to pass orders after recording the absence of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

ar To:

¶26

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tenkasi-(C)

¶27

+1CC to Mr.A.Chandrasekaran, Advocate Sr.No.9545 +1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.9686

¶28

GJM/RR/17.3.17-2p-4C

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2017 and WMP(MD)No.1265 of 2017 21.02.2017

¶30

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

Tvl.K.R.Residency, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.K.R.Residency, 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

K.Natarajan Vs the Management Director

R.Balakrishnan Vs the Managing Director

T.Veerapandian, Vs the Management of

R. Sivasakthi Selvan, Vs the Secretary

S.Meenakshisundaram, Vs the Director General of

Sp.Murugesan Vs the Managing Director