Dismissed

M/S.Kalpataru Power v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC10 Jan 2017WP(MD)/421/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of excess sales tax. Instead of deciding on merits, the court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's formal representation for refund and interest within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for refund of excess tax and interest within four weeks.

M/S.Kalpataru Power Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct) — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.01.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No. 421 of 2017

¶5

M/s. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.,

¶6

Rep.by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Jeyendra Govindlal Shah,

¶7

2^nd Floor, Bawa Building,

¶8

Kailasapuram North Street,

¶9

Tirunelveli Junction. ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle,

¶12

Tirunelveli.

¶13

2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

¶14

Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to refund the amount of taxes paid in excess along with interest due thereon for the assessment Year 2006-07 as contemplated under section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. R.D.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr. R.Karthikeyan

¶17

Additional Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to refund the amount of taxes paid in excess along with interest due thereon for the assessment Year 2006-07, as contemplated under section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

Considering the limited scope of the prayer made in this writ petition, without expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation of the petitioner, dated 26.12.2016 and pass appropriate orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶22

¶23

copy of this order, preferably on or before 28^th February, 2017. It is needless say that while disposing of the representation for refund of money, the interest due to the petitioner may also be considered, as per law.

¶24

Even though it has been represented by the learned

¶25

Additional Government appearing for the respondents that revision of assessment has got to be done, that would not preclude them from considering the case independently de hors the revision of assessment.

¶26

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶33

2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.R.D.Ganesan,Sr no 2015

¶35

+1cc to Special Government Pleader sr no 2288

¶36

¶37

ms skn mm 27 01 2017 2p 5c

¶38

W.P.(MD)No. 421 of 2017

¶39

10.01.2017

¶40

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

M/S.Kalpataru Power v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kalpataru Power v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

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

Madurai Pandiyan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

T. Sugumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arunprakash, Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Krishna Corporation, Vs the Appellate Deputy

A.Alexander Vs the Managing Director

T.Srikumara Doss Vs the Managing Director