Disposed

Thomson Furniture, v. The Commercial Tax Officer(St)

Madras HC4 Apr 2018WP/3392/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madras High Court disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to treat the impugned assessment order as a show cause notice and file further objections. The First Respondent is directed to afford a personal hearing and redo the assessment.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to file further objections treating the order as a show cause notice within 15 days. First respondent directed to afford personal hearing and redo assessment.

Thomson Furniture, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer(St) — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.3392 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.4157 of 2018

¶6

Thomson Furniture, rep. by its
Proprietor, Mr.K.T.Joseph,
No.1, Head Post Office Road,
Coimbatore-641 001. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commercial Tax Officer (ST),
N.H. Road, Circle, Coimbatore.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Enforcement, Group II,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records on the files of the first respondent herein in
TIN:33021901232/2015-16 dated 17.01.2018 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Narayanan
for Mr.N.Inbarajan
For Respondents : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri,
Government Advocate
******
O R D E R

¶7

Heard Mr.K.Narayanan, learned counsel for Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶8

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

¶9

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent, is aggrieved by the impugned assessment order dated 17.01.2018, for the assessment year 2015-16, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

¶10

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground that, the first respondent failed to follow the decision of this Court in the case of Tvl.Bawa Medicals and another vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Omalur and another in W.P.Nos.19262 and 19263 of 2017 dated 09.01.2018.

¶11

The second ground raised by the petitioner is that, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the impugned reassessment proceedings have been concluded.

¶12

The third ground of challenge is by contending that the first respondent did not consider the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner, but mechanically followed the report of the Enforcement Wing.

¶13

So far as the first issue is concerned, the same was not specifically pleaded by the petitioner before the assessing officer. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be faulted for not dealing with the said issue, as it was not pointed out by the petitioner in their objections dated 12.08.2017.

¶14

So far as the second issue is concerned, I find that opportunity of personal hearing has not been granted, which is mandatory.

¶15

Thirdly, the assessing officer being an independent statutory authority has to consider the objections of the assessee uninfluenced by the observations of the Enforcement Wing Officials. The report of the Enforcement Wing can, at best, be a starting point for issuance of pre-revision notice and after objections are filed, the merits of the objections have to be considered independently. Therefore, on grounds two and three, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate direction. However, for such reason, instead of setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and file further objections.

¶16

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

¶17

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file further objections by treating the impugned assessment order as a show cause notice within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections, the first respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to place all contentions before the first respondent including the decision in Tvl.Bawa Medicals (referred supra). Till fresh orders are passed in terms of the above direction, no coercive action shall be initiated, pursuant to the impugned assessment order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commercial Tax Officer (ST),
N.H. Road, Circle, Coimbatore.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Enforcement, Group II,
Coimbatore.

¶19

+1 cc to M/s.N.Inbarajan Advocate sr 24981
+1 cc to Govt pleader High Court Madras
sr 25308

¶20

W.P.No.3392 of 2018 nrl(co) aa17/04/2018

¶21

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

Thomson Furniture, v. The Commercial Tax Officer(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomson Furniture, v. The Commercial Tax Officer(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Junaid Vs The Secretary to Government

The Executive Officer Vs The Commissioner of Central

R.Venkatesan, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Cavinkare Pvt.Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Pnp Polytex Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/s.International Coal Agency, Vs The Assistant Commissioner