Allowed

M/s.Raymix Concrete India v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC26 Jul 2018WP/3201/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order for 2015-16. It held that a new Assessing Officer must afford an opportunity of personal hearing when taking over proceedings where objections were already filed by the previous officer. The impugned order was quashed for violating natural justice and remitted for fresh assessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity of personal hearing and a speaking order.

M/s.Raymix Concrete India Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 26.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.3201 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.3937 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Raymix Concrete India P. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Mr.R.Maria Alasu Rajan No.1/107, 1/108, P.H.Road

¶7

Nerkundram, Chennai. .. Petitioner Versus

¶8

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) J.J.Nagar Assessment Circle Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) J.J.Nagar Assessment Circle. .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in TIN/33331249471/2015-2016 and quash the impugned order dated 10.01.2018 as passed contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and in violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the first respondent to conduct a proper enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, consider the objections and the documents filed by the petitioner and after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar

¶11

For Respondents: Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri

¶12

Government Advocate.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the assessment order for the year 2015-16, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.01.2018. The main ground on which, the impugned assessment

¶16

order has been challenged, is that an opportunity of personal hearing has not been granted by the first respondent, who is the new Assessing Officer and who had taken over charge from the second respondent.

¶17

A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, which consists of 26 pages. I have gone through the counter affidavit and find that most of the paragraphs are repetitions. The manner in which, the counter affidavit has been preferred is not convincing. The respondent is bound to state the case of the respondent then meat the grounds raised by the writ petitioner. The same facts should not be repeated as done by the respondent in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the Court has taken into consideration only such of those averments, which are necessary for deciding the issue raised before the Court.

¶18

Admittedly, the objections filed by the petitioner was received on 12.12.2017 by the second respondent. If the first respondent is the new Assessing Officer, who had taken charge, then he has to proceed from the stage where the second respondent has left the proceedings. In the petitioner's case, the stage was that objections filed by the petitioner were received on 11.12.2017. Therefore, the proper procedure for the first respondent is to afford an opportunity of personal hearing and conclude the assessment by passing a speaking order. This has not been done by the first respondent rendering the impugned order as being unsustainable in law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on that ground alone, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law. The first respondent shall take a decision with an open mind uninfluenced by the opinion expressed by him in the impugned order because the same has been quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

vsm

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) J.J.Nagar Assessment Circle Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040.

¶27

2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) J.J.Nagar Assessment Circle.

¶28

1 cc to Mr. P. Rajkumar, Advocte SR.50537
+ 1 cc to Mr. Special Government Pleader Sr.51469
W.P.No.3201 of 2018
VGI(CO)
EU(27/08/2018 )

¶29

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

M/s.Raymix Concrete India v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Raymix Concrete India 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Senthamaraikannan Vs S.Basker

Shri Dhanalakshmi Irons, Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s.Chennai Steel Company Vs State Tax officer(Fac)

Smt.C.Devaki Vs The Commissioner (Excise)

Kovai Medical Centre Research Vs the Executive Officer

Tmt.Shanthi @ Shanthalakshmi, Vs The Commissioner