Allowed

M/s.Ashok Builder, v. Assistant Commissioner(St)

Madras HC4 Jun 2018WP/1171/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madras High Court allowed the challenge to an assessment order under section 84 of the TNVAT Act. The court held the petitioner's order was illegal due to inadequate reasoning and remanded the matter to the Assessor for a speaking order on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.11.2017 was set aside and the matter remanded to the respondent to pass fresh speaking orders on merits after affording a personal hearing.

M/s.Ashok Builder, Vs Assistant Commissioner(St) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.1171 of 2018 & W.M.P.Nos.1457 and 1458 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Ashok Builders,

¶7

Rep. by its Partner - C.Ashok Kumar, No.999-1A, Bharathi Nagar, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem - 636 302, Salem District .. Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner (CT) Suramangalam Assessment Circle,

¶10

Salem, Salem District. .. Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his impugned proceedings made in TIN:33442804459/2014-15 dated 26.09.2017 and the consequential order in TIN No.33442804459/2014-15 dated 24.11.2017 quash the same as illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.

¶12

Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

The petitioner is before this Court challenging an order passed by the respondent under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) for the Assessment year 2014-2015.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner has filed appeals as against the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and in the instant case also the petitioner should be directed to file an appeal.

¶18

However, from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, I find that the issue relating to construction of lands is not the subject matter of the assessment for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, which are now pending before the appellate authority. The impugned assessment is for the year 2014-2015 wherein, the issue regarding construction of lands is the major issue. Therefore, any observation made in this order will have no impact on the appeals, which are pending against the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

¶19

The Court has gone through the petition filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Act dated 06.11.2017. In the said petition, the petitioner has specifically referred to a deviation proposal sent by the Assistant Commissioner(CT), Suramangalam Circle, proposing to deviate from the observations made by the Inspecting Officials. Apart from that, the petitioner has pointed out that they have constructed only 36 flats out of total 84 flats and there cannot be any deemed sale of the flats, which are yet to be constructed.

¶20

I have perused the impugned order dated 24.11.2017 and I find that the reasons assigned by the respondent are not adequate. This observation is made taking note of the elaborate averments set out by the petitioner in their petition filed under section 84 of the Act dated 06.11.2017.

¶21

Therefore, the Court is convinced that the petition has to be reconsidered and fresh orders has to be passed. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a speaking order, on merits in accordance with law, after taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner including the deviation proposal sent by the Assistant Commissioner(CT), Suramangalam Circle. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶23

//True copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

Rj/msv

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Suramangalam Assessment Circle, Salem, Salem District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.R.Hemalatha, Advocate SR.No.34989 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader SR.No.34769

¶30

W.P.No.1171 of 2018 &
W.M.P.Nos.1457 and 1458 of 2018
GN(11/06/2018)

¶31

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

M/s.Ashok Builder, v. Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ashok Builder, v. Assistant Commissioner(St)

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

M/s Empress Audio Vs Commissioner of Commercial

M/s. Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/s.Kubhera Cable Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Cosmopolitan Club Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Dr.Y.Siva Arul Durai Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

M/S.Roverco Apparel Company Vs the Joint Commissioner of