The Division Bench dismissed the tax revision filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as against the petitioner, who withdrew counsel and failed to prosecute the matter despite notice.
The tax case (revision) is dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.12.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Tax Case (Revision) No.995 of 2006
Tvl.Sri Rama Traders, 77/2, Acharapakkam Road, Madurantakkam. ... Petitioner -vs-
1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurantakam Assessment Circle, Madurantakam.
2.The Joint Commissioner (SMR), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, IV Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. ... Respondents
Tax Case (Revision) filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General
Sales Tax Act (TNGST Act), 1959 against the order of the Joint Commissioner III (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 dated
15.10.2001 in ref.No.M2.T2/79442/97, SMR.No.700/98 for the assessment year 1992-93.
2
| For Petitioner | : | No appearance |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondents | : | Mr.V.Haribabu |
| Additional Government Pleader ****** |
Order
(Order of the Court was made by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
The learned counsel who had entered appearance on behalf of the
petitioner had filed a memo stating that they are withdrawing their vakalat.
This was recorded by the Division Bench by order dated 05.11.2008 and the
Court directed the Registry to issue a notice to the petitioner.
2.This direction has been complied with. However, the Office report
states that the letter sent by the Registry is not yet returned. We find that the
case was heard earlier during November and December 2008 and till date, the
petitioner has not made any alternate arrangements nor taken steps to appear in person or through some other counsel. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is
not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the tax case (revision) is
dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
cse
3
To
4
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. and N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
cse
T.C.(R) No.995 of 2006
13.12.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tax case should be dismissed for lack of prosecution after the petitioner withdrew vakalat and failed to appear or make alternate arrangements.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tvl.Sri Rama Traders
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurantakam
Joint Commissioner (SMR), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
T.S.Sivagnanam
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
