Allowed

P.Suresh,No.87,East street, v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC24 Jul 2018WP/18785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act for 2012-13. Finding that the Assessing Officer failed to afford a mandatory personal hearing and ignored discrepancies in purchase figures, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the respondent for a fresh assessment after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner.

P.Suresh,No.87,East street, Vs The State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 24.7.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.18785 of 2018

¶6

¶7

WMP.No.22133 of 2018

¶8

P.Suresh ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Nagapattinam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Court Campus, Veliyapalayam, Nagapattinam. ...Respondent

¶11

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 TIN No.33543901959/2012-13 dated 11.5.2018 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan For Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, GA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the year 2012-13.

¶16

On a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that before ever the impugned assessment order was passed, the respondent did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing, which is mandatory. Furthermore, the reason assigned in the impugned assessment order is that the certificate of purchases given by the supplier, namely M/s.India Cements Limited, could not be verified with reference to the documents filed. Ultimately, the respondent stated that the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. When the revision of assessment is

¶17

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

¶18

based on the information taken from the official website of the Department, care and caution should be observed by the Assessing Officer while revising the turnover.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the figure with the regard to the purchases reported in Form WW has been mentioned as Rs.1,68,99,345/- whereas in the return filed by the petitioner, it has been stated as Rs.1,72,62,279/-.

¶20

Therefore, it is clear that there is a lot of discrepancy in the matter and an opportunity of personal hearing should be granted.

¶21

For this reason alone, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rs
To

¶23

The State Tax Officer, Nagapattinam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Court Campus, Veliyapalayam, Nagapattinam.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate SR.No.50463

¶25

+1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes) SR.No.50064

¶26

WP.No.18785 of 2018& WMP.No.22133 of 2018

¶27

SVN(CO) GN(07/08/2018)

¶28

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

P.Suresh,No.87,East street, v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Suresh,No.87,East street, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.P.Kalyani Vs The commissioner, Greater

Girias Investment Private Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Globe Ecologistics (P) Ltd. Vs The Deputy commercial Tax

V.R. Loganathan Vs Mr. G. Dakshinamoorthy

C.Dhanasekar Vs The District Manager

Sri Vadivudaiamman Steel Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)