Disposed

Anitha Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC22 Jun 2018WP/15021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned tax proceedings as a show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to submit objections within 15 days, allowing the Assessing Officer to conduct a personal hearing and redo the assessment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to treat proceedings as a show cause notice and submit objections within 15 days; Respondent to afford personal hearing and redo assessment.

Anitha Enterprises Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.6.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.15021 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.17791 & 17792 of 2018

¶6

Tvl.Anitha Enterprises, rep.by T.Ravindiran ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudiyatham (West). ...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 of the respondent in order dated 30.10.2015 in TIN No.33534342781/2013-14 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, AGP ORDER

¶11

Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 dated 30.10.2015 for the year 2013-14.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that the revision notice dated 16.9.2015, which has been referred to in the impugned order, was not received by the petitioner. The petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act and received a reply on 07.6.2018, in which, it has been stated that the revision notice as well as the order have been returned with the postal endorsement 'insufficient address'.

¶14

The petitioner would state that the address pertaining to the registered office of the petitioner alone has been given and that therefore, there can be no chance for such a notice returning unserved for insufficient address. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be in a position to

¶15

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

¶16

reconcile the alleged discrepancies pointed out in the impugned order, which, according to the respondent, came to light on account of cross verification done through the departmental website. Considering these facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted one more opportunity to go before the Assessing Officer, as from 2015 onwards, the impugned order remains as a paper order and no recovery was effected. Furthermore, as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the notice was served on the legal practitioner on on 29.8.2016 i.e. almost one year after the impugned assessment order was passed.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit their further objections within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the further objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing, peruse the documents that the petitioner may produce and redo the assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.

¶18

Sd/Deputy Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudiyatham (West). + 1 cc to Mr. Adithya Reddy, Advocate Sr.39376 + 1 cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.40006

¶19

WP.No.15021 of 2018 & WMP. Nos.17791 & 17792 of 2018 (CS-DR) EU(03/07/2018 )

¶20

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

Anitha Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

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.Adayar Gate Hotel Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Customs

N.V. Kamalesh Kumar Vs Thirupalani

Swamy Ayyappa Diesel Works Vs The Sales Tax Officer

N. Chandrasekaran Vs Mr. Rajendran

S.Rathinam Vs The Tax Recovery Officer-I

M/s J.D.Traders, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)