Allowed

Pratheep Electro Technics v. the Deputy Commercial

Madras HC16 Mar 2018WP/12997/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging distraint proceedings (Form 4) issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Court found that petitioners had paid assessed arrears, with some balances fully settled or excess tax ordered to be refunded, rendering the enforcement action unnecessary. Consequently, the petitions were allowed and the notices quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned notices quashed as matter attained finality and no enforcement of distraint proceedings required.

Pratheep Electro Technics Vs the Deputy Commercial — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.12997 to 12999 of 2006

¶6

Pratheep Electro Technics, Rep. by its Proprietor, 3/31-B, 1^st Floor, Abbas Garden Road, Luna Nagar, Coimbatore-641 025. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12997/2006 Tvl.Cascade Electro Thermics (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director, A.Mahesh, 3, Cascade Lay out, Luna Bazaar, Coimbatore-25. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12998/2006 Tvl.Cascade Helio Thermics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, A.Mahesh, 355, Abbas Garden Road, Luna Bazaar, Coimbatore-25. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12999/2006

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vellandipalayam Circle, CT Buildings, Dr.Balasundara Road, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶9

... Respondent in all W.Ps.

¶10

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records of the respondent issued under the Revenue Recovery Act in Form 4 dated 10.03.2006, 14.03.2006 and 14.03.2006 respectively and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Soundararajan (in all W.Ps.)

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, (in all W.Ps.) Additional Government Pleader

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶16

Heard Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶17

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action initiated by the respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the arrears of sales tax payable by the petitioners.

¶18

The petitioners' case is that they have paid tax for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. However, there was a small arrear in respect of the tax payable for the assessment year 2002-03, which has also been subsequently remitted. However, the respondent straightaway proceeded to initiate distraint proceedings and has issued the impugned notices.

¶19

The parawise comments furnished by the learned assessing officer to the learned Special Government Pleader vide his proceedings dated 19.03.2009, show that the petitioner has paid the arrears of tax for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2005-06. This pertains to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12999 of 2006.

¶20

In respect of W.P.No.12997 of 2006, the respondent has stated that an excess tax and surcharge of Rs.6,847/- was ordered to be refunded for the assessment year 2004-05 and there is no balance tax and surcharge payable for the assessment year 2005-06 as per the assessment orders. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has paid the entire arrears as mentioned in Form 3 & Form 4 notices as on 10.03.2006, and therefore, prayed that this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶21

In so far as the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12998 of 2006 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted 'C' Forms obtained from the other State buyers and they did not obtain 'F' Forms initially. It is submitted that the petitioners have subsequently submitted 'F' Form Declaration for Rs.12,87,069/- for the assessment year 2001-02 and appropriate relief has been given by revising the assessment for the said assessment year. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has filed 'C' Forms for Rs.2,12,115/- and 'F' Forms for Rs.1,94,40,449/- for the assessment year 2002-03 and the assessments have been revised and the balance due has been paid.

¶22

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

¶23

Thus, for the above reasons, I find that the entire matter has attained finality and the question of enforcing the impugned distraint proceedings does not arise. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Vellandipalayam Circle,
CT Buildings, Dr.Balasundara Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
+1cc to Special government Pleader (Taxes), sr.20722
W.P.Nos.12997 to 12999 of 2006
nr 09/04/2018

¶25

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

Pratheep Electro Technics v. the Deputy Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratheep Electro Technics v. the Deputy Commercial

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

Icici Lombard General Vs G.Kannammal

M/S.Chennai Polymers P Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

A. Venkatasamy, Vs the District Collector

S.Raja Vs the State of T.N.

M.Sivalingam Vs the Dist.Collector

M/S Jenway General Vs the Commercial Tax Officer