Allowed

Girias Investment Private v. the Assistant Commissioner(St)

Madras HC23 Jul 2018WP/18585/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed without jurisdiction under Section 27 of Tamil Nadu VAT Act. The court held revision could not be invoked without a deemed assessment and directed completion of assessment in October after a fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondent is directed to complete the assessment in October 2018 after issuing a fresh notice.

Girias Investment Private Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 23.7.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.18585 of 2018 & WMP.No.21932 of 2018

¶6

Girias Investment Private Limited, rep.by its Director Nitesh Giria ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Aminjikarai Circle, 50F, I Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-102. ...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 in TIN 33031025365/ 2017-18 dated 03.7.2018 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, AGP

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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.

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the assessment order passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction, as the impugned revised proceedings have been made without even any original assessment.

¶14

It is submitted that as per Section 22(2) of the said Act, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been assessed for the year 2017-18 on 31.10.2018 and not earlier and that therefore, the impugned assessment order is not sustainable.

¶15

However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent seeks to sustain the impugned order on the ground that the impugned assessment order is a final assessment order for a period of three months and that if the petitioner is aggrieved, they can file an appeal.

¶16

This Court is not convinced with the said submission of the learned Government Advocate for more than one reason. Firstly, unless and until the petitioner is deemed to have been assessed, the question of revision of assessment does not arise and the power under Section 27 of the said Act cannot be

¶17

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

¶18

invoked. Secondly, for a deemed assessment to be made under Section 22(2) of the said Act for the relevant year, the Assessing Officer has to necessarily wait till 31st of October 2018. On both these grounds, the impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to complete the assessment for the entire year in October 2018 after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Aminjikarai Circle, 50F, I
Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-102.
+1cc to Mr.R.Kumar, Advocate sr.no.49127
+1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes), sr.no.49564
WP.No.18585 of 2018&
WMP.No.21932 of 2018
gmr(co)
nr 07/08/2018

¶21

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

Girias Investment Private v. the Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girias Investment Private v. the 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

C. Sasikumar, Vs Smt. Sundaravalli, I.A.S.

Tvl.Anis Paints, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

S.Sakayaraj Vs The Commissioner

N.Raja, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl. Datang Technologies & Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Mefco Engineers Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)