Allowed

Tvl. Subramaniyam and Co. v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC4 Jul 2018WP/14131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed impugned assessment orders passed under the General Sales Tax Act for Assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. The assessment was held illegal as it was passed beyond the four-year limitation period under Section 22(2) and without adherence to procedural mandates of the TNVAT Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment orders dated 10.06.2016 and 13.06.2016 were quashed as illegal. No costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Tvl. Subramaniyam and Co. Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 04.07.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.14131 & 14132 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.15335 and 15336 of 2017

¶6

Tvl.Subramaniyam and Co represented by its Proprietor No.27, Ponnusamy Street

¶7

Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Chepauk Assessment Circle Chennai .. Respondent in both WPs

¶9

Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in CST 37465/2007-08 dated 10.06.2016 and CST 37465/2009-10 dated 13.06.2016 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in contrary to the principles of natural justice and durtehr direct the respondent to pass orders of assessment after issuing the statutory notice and after granting an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act r/w.Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader

¶12

Heard Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶13

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the repsondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959,

¶14

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

¶15

is before this Court challenging the Assessment Orders under the General Sales Tax Act for Assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 dated 10.06.2016 and 13.06.2016 respectively.

¶16

3.After hearing the learned cousnel for the parties, I find that the impugned Assessment orders have been passed beyond the period of four years, which is the period of limitation prescribed for invoking Section 22(2) of the Act. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that the impugned re-assessment is under Section 27, then the procedure required under the provsiions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, has not been followed. Thus, either way the impugned orders have to be held to be illegal.

¶17

In the light of the above, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-vi) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa/msrm To The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Chepauk Assessment Circle Chennai +1cc to Mr.A.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate, S.R.No.43264 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.43706 +1cc to Mr.A.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate, S.R.No.43263 (23.07.2018)

¶19

Writ Petition Nos.14131 & 14132 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.15335 and 15336 of 2017 TR(16/07/2018)

¶20

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

Tvl. Subramaniyam and Co. v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Subramaniyam and Co. 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

M/s.Boyance Infrastructure Vs Assistant Commissioner

K.K. Krishnamoorthy, Vs B.Vanithamani

Tvl.a.S.Enterprises, Vs The State Tax Officer

M.M.Uvais, Vs The Commissioner

Smt.Faridha Banu Vs Principal Commissioner of

M/s. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Additional Chief