Allowed

Sri Mahalakshmi Traders v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC5 Jul 2018WP/16636/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed writ petitions quashing Sales Tax assessment orders. Finding a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not furnished with full details of discrepancies, the Court remanded the matter for a fresh assessment and personal hearing, relying on JKN Graphics Solution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh assessment with an opportunity of personal hearing.

Sri Mahalakshmi Traders Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.07.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. Nos.16636 to 16640 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.19849 to 19853 of 2018

¶6

Sri Mahalakshmi Traders Rep. by its Proprietor, N.Mohan.

¶7

.. Petitioner in all WPs. -vs-

¶8

The Sales Tax Officer, Krishnagiri Assessment Circle, Krishnagiri. .. Respondent in all WPs.

¶9

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN: 33643303899/200910, 33643303899/2011-12, 33643303899/2012-13, 33643303899/201314 and 33643303899/2014-15 dated 23.04.2018 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶10

Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent. Since this Court is satisfied that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petitions are taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶11

2.The petitioner's turnover for the relevant assessment years was proposed to be reversed on the ground that there is some mis-match between the details in the monthly return filed by the petitioner in Form I, when compared with the details available in the department website. To the notice dated 05.02.2018, the petitioner made a request to supply the full

¶12

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

¶13

details regarding the discrepancies, namely, party name, TIN number, Invoice number, Invoice date, Invoice amount, etc.

¶14

3.From the instructions given by the respondent to the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that there is no record to show that full details were furnished to the petitioner. In any event, the matter pertaining to “mis-match” issue, there is a necessity to conduct an enquiry into the matter, as held by this Court in the case of JKN Graphics Solution Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commercial Tax Officer, reported in (2017) 99 VST 343. Hence, this Court is of the view that the assessment should be redone.

¶15

4.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and re-do the assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.19849 to 19853 of 2018 are closed.

¶16

Sd/Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To

¶17

The State Tax Officer Krishnagiri.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.R.Senniappan, Advocate, S.R.No.43591

¶19

+1cc to the Spl Government Pleader, S.R.No.44162

¶20

W.P.Nos.16636 to 16640 of 2018

¶21

GSP(17/07/2018)

¶22

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

Sri Mahalakshmi Traders v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahalakshmi Traders v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Uvais, Vs The Commissioner

Smt.Faridha Banu Vs Principal Commissioner of

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

M. Maruthu Pandian Vs The District Collector

M/s. Kpm Agency Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Tvl. Firza Leather & Uppers, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer