Disposed

M/s.Senthil Andavar Pipe v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC23 Apr 2018WP/10007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging an enhanced tax assessment order. Finding the petitioner failed to reply to a pre-assessment notice, the Court held that he could not claim violation of natural justice. However, granting him a fresh opportunity to file objections after paying 15% of the tax demanded, the Court directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment wi

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent: if petitioner pays 15% of tax within three weeks, treat impugned order as show cause notice; grant petitioner opportunity for personal hearing; respondent not to demand balanc

M/s.Senthil Andavar Pipe Vs The Deputy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 23.4.2018

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.10007 of 2018 and WMP.Nos.11959 & 11960 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Senthil Andavar Pipe, rep.by its Proprietor A.Rajesh

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thirukoilur, Villupuram District. ...Respondent

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in its impugned proceedings made in TIN No.33824762292/2012-13 dated 16.6.2015 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Hemalatha

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, GA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of assessment dated 16.6.2015 for the year 2012-13 on the ground that adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner.

¶15

It is seen that the pre-assessment notice dated 11.5.2015 was served on the petitioner. In the said notice, there was a proposal to revise the taxable turnover of the petitioner on the ground of mismatch between the sale and purchases effected by the petitioner, the list of such transactions was also appended to the notice dated 11.5.2015. Though the petitioner received the notice, they did not file any reply and therefore, the respondent confirmed the proposal in the notice. This is being challenged in this writ petition. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner, having not availed the

¶16

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

¶17

opportunity extended to them, cannot complain that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶18

However, taking into consideration the fact that the proposal in the show cause notice was based on the web report/mismatch, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner subject to a condition.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay 15% of the tax demanded within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the petitioner is entitled to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and file their objections within two weeks therefrom. On filing of such objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law. On the petitioner complying with the condition of payment of 15% of the tax demanded, the respondent shall not demand the balance of tax amount and the entire penalty as quantified in the impugned assessment order, since this Court has directed the impugned proceedings to be treated as a show cause notice. It is made clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner if the petitioner fails to make payment of 15% of the tax demanded within the time stipulated. No costs. Consequently, the above WMPs are closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To

¶21

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thirukoilur, Villupuram District.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.R.Hemalatha, Advocate SR.No.29848 +1cc to Special Government Pleader (Taxes) SR.No.30347

¶23

WP.No.10007 of 2018 & WMP. Nos.11959 & 11960 of 2018

¶24

RSI(CO) GN(11/05/2018)

¶25

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

M/s.Senthil Andavar Pipe v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Senthil Andavar Pipe v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

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

Barakathnisa Vs The Principal Commissioner of

S.Lashmipathy Vs The Commissioner

Tvl.S.M.Square Marketing, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

Serene Remedies Medicines Vs The tamil Nadu Sales Tax

Tvl.Shree Guru Hasti Thanga Vs The State Tax Officer

K.Subramani Works Contractor Vs State Tax Officer