Disposed

Tvl.Surabi Enterprises, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC20 Jun 2018WP/29399/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act and CST Act for AY 2012-13. The Court avoided deciding merits regarding service or business status and instead treated the impugned orders as show-cause notices, directing the petitioner to submit objections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to treat impugned orders as show cause notices, submit objections within 15 days; Respondent to fix hearing within 2 weeks and redo assessment.

Tvl.Surabi Enterprises, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.29399 & 29400 of 2013

¶6

M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 ( 2 MPs)

¶7

Tvl. Surabi Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor T.Shanthilal 6, Ekambareswarar Agraharam Street Chennai - 600 003

¶8

.. Petitioner in both WPs

¶9

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle 191, N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai - 600 001 .. Respondent in both WPs

¶11

W.P.Nos.29399/2013 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN No.33290361451/2012-13, dated 23.09.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

W.P.Nos.29400/2013 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in CST/920589/2012-13, dated 23.09.2013 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

Heard Mr.P.R.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent.

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the assessment orders under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 2012-13. The impugned assessments have been completed on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the impugned notice dated 31.07.2013 as the notice was returned as "Door locked and no such Company".

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the stand taken by the respondent in the impugned order is wholly incorrect, since the petitioner is still carrying on business and on 16.08.2012, an inspection was conducted in the place of business of the petitioner and statement was recorded, which shows that the petitioner is still carrying on business. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the time for filing Form WW is available to the petitioner till 31.10.2013 and the petitioner had sent the Form WW to the respondent by RPAD on 23.10.2013.

¶19

Till date, the respondent neither filed counter affidavit nor given written instructions to the learned Additional Government Pleader.

¶20

Considering the fact that the matters are pending since 2013 and the interim order is also being in force, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions without going into to the contraversy as to whether the petitioner is still carrying on business or not and whether the revision notice was properly served, etc.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to treat the impugned assessment orders dated 23.09.2013 as show cause notices and submit their objections with in a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections, the respondent is directed to fix a date for personal hearing, within a period of two weeks therefrom and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, redo the assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/Deputy Registrar

//True Copy//

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

¶26

¶27

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle 191, N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai - 600 001 +1cc to Mr.P.R.Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.38507

¶28

+1cc to the Spl Government Pleader, S.R.No.39076

¶29

W.P.Nos.29399 & 29400 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 (2 MPs) GSP(03/07/2018)

¶30

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

Tvl.Surabi Enterprises, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Surabi Enterprises, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakthi Oil Refineries Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Dr. Prathap Chandra Reddy Vs Income Tax Settlement

S.Vimalkumar Vs The Commissioner

Venkateswara Automobiles Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Vanjax Sales Pvt. Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Prime Gold International Vs The Assistant Commissioner of