Disposed

M/s.Sivam Agencies, v. Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC8 Jan 2018WP/207/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an Orit petition challenging a revised VAT assessment order. Although the appeal remedy was time barred due to the petitioner's failure to object, the Court allowed filing objections as a show cause notice upon the condition that the petitioner pays 15% of the disputed tax within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to pay 15% of the disputed tax within three weeks to entitle the petitioner to submit objections and be heard.

M/s.Sivam Agencies, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 08.1.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.207 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.283 & 284 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Sivam Agencies, rep.by its Proprietrix D.Lokeswari

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Main), Gudiyatham (East) Assessment Circle, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. ...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 on the file of the respondent in its impugned proceedings made in TIN : 33584246481/2014-15 dated 30.12.2016 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent : Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, GA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Ms.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.

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved by a revised order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

¶14

The petitioner alone has to be blamed because the petitioner did not file their objections to the revision notices dated 29.4.2016, 11.6.2016 and 30.8.2016 issued by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent cannot be found fault with for confirming the proposal in the said revision notices in the absence of any written objections.

¶15

One more serious mistake committed by the petitioner is that they did not avail the remedies under the said Act against the order of assessment and by now, even if an appeal is filed, it is time barred.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Government Advocate points out that there is no valid reason for filing this writ petition belatedly, especially after the appeal remedy has become time barred.

¶18

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer, however, subject to a condition.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner complies with the said condition, they will be entitled to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of seven days therefrom. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. It is needless to add that the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner, if the petitioner fails to comply with the condition of payment of 15% of the disputed tax within the time stipulated. No costs. Consequently, the above WMPs are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Main), Gudiyatham (East) Assessment

¶23

Circle, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶24

aa24/01/2017

¶25

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

M/s.Sivam Agencies, v. Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sivam Agencies, v. Deputy Commercial Tax

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

Shri P. Ajeeth, Vs the Commissioner of Income

Smt.Mamtha, Vs the Commissioner of Incometax-

Shri Mohammed Omar Shaik Vs Shri Rajan Choudry

Arvind Suriya Ceramics Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Creative Trading Company, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Mahe Beach Trading Company Vs the Commercial Tax Officer