Disposed

Tvl.Hira Exim rep by its v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC20 Apr 2018WP/4369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging Assessment Orders. It rejected the petitioner's claim of non-service, noted procedural defects, and directed payment of 20% of disputed tax to grant one more opportunity to raise objections before automatic dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay 20% of disputed tax for each assessment year within 3 weeks to obtain opportunity for objections and hearing; failure results in automatic dismissal.

Tvl.Hira Exim rep by its Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶2

W.P.Nos.4369 to 4370 of 2018 & W.M.P.Nos.5366 and 5367 of 2018

¶3

Tvl.Hira Exim

¶4

represented by its Proprietor Tvl. M.Althafur Rahman Main Complex Near Old Petrol Bunk No.215, High Road Perambur, Gudiyatham-635 810 Vellore District ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Commercial Tax Officer (Addl) Gudiyatham (West) Vellore District 2.The Sub-Registrar Pernambut – 635 810 Vellore District ... Respondents

¶5

Prayer in W.P.No.4369 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent dated 01.02.2016 in TIN No.33414343623/2014-15 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to raise the attachment on the petitioner's property situated at No.518/3, Erthangal Hakeem 1^st Street, Pernambut by suitably writing to the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

Prayer in W.P.No.4370 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent dated 01.02.2016 in TIN No.33414343623/2015-16 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to raise the attachment on the petitioner's property situated at No.518/3, Erthangal Hakeem 1^st Street, Pernambut by suitably writing to the 2^nd respondent.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Govt. Pleader

¶8

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

¶9

COMMON ORDER

¶10

Heard Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶11

The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the Assessment Orders under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 for the Assessment years 2014-15 and 201516. It is to be pointed that the impugned Assessment Orders are dated 01.02.2016. Therefore, the petitioner, even he had to file an appeal, the same will be dismissed as barred by limitation. Hence, this Court would have been fully justified in dismissing the writ petitions. However, since the interest of the revenue is also involved, this Court does not propose to proceed in that angle.

¶12

The petitioner's case is that he has not been served with the revision notice. This has been established to be factually incorrect by the Additional Government Pleader by producing copy of the original files which shows that the revision notice has been received on 14.12.2015. Though the petitioner received the notice, no objections were filed. After waiting for one year, the respondent has passed the impugned order. The impugned order was not received by the petitioner, but was returned back. Therefore, the respondent had taken steps to affix the impugned order in the door of the business place of the petitioner on 11.05.2016. Thus, the petitioner has been evading assessment proceedings and adopting dilatory tactics. If the writ petition had to be dismissed for this reason and then the question of recovery of the amount from the petitioner would be further jeopardized. That apart, I find that in the assessment order passed, there is mismatch between Annexures 1 and 2 details. Therefore, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax for each of the assessment years within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of the said amount, the petitioner is permitted to treat the impugned Assessment Orders as show-cause notice and submit their objections within 7 days thereafter. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. However, If the petitioner

¶14

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

¶15

fails to comply with the above direction, the benefit of this order will not enure in favour of the petitioner and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed without any further reference to this Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶16

Deputy Registrar

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To
1.The Commercial Tax Officer (Addl)
Gudiyatham (West)
Vellore District
2.The Sub-Registrar
Pernambut – 635 810,
Vellore District
+1cc to Mr.Athithya Reddy, Advocate SR.No.29902
+1cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.No.30068
sm:4.5.2018
W.P.Nos.4369 to 4370 of 2018 &
W.M.P.Nos.5366 and 5367 of 2018

¶19

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

Tvl.Hira Exim rep by its v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Hira Exim rep by its v. The Commercial 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

M/s.Unique Recording, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s White House Residencies Vs The State Tax Officer

Ms.R.K.B.Roof, Vs Assistant Commissioner(St)

Barakathnisa Vs The Principal Commissioner of

S.Lashmipathy Vs The Commissioner

Tvl.S.M.Square Marketing, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of