Allowed

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar, v. The Deputy Commercial Officer

Madras HC26 Apr 2018WP/4408/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a letter from the Government of India Enterprise withdrawing the need for a compounding fee mandates re-examination of the order. The writ court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting it to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration upon production of the letter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to produce letter dated 08.05.2017; Respondent to pass fresh orders on merits within four weeks to grant refund.

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar, Vs The Deputy Commercial… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.4408 of 2018

¶6

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar
Rep by its Proprietor
N.Muthurathinam
No.135/9, 135/7 ECR Road
Lawspet
Puducherry - 605 008 ... Petitioner
vs.
1 The Deputy Commercial Officer
Pattanur Check Post
Villupuram District
2 The Joint Commissioner (CT)
Vellore Division
Government Building
4, Bharathiyar Street, Fort Round
Vellore 632 001 ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of directing the 1st respondent to
refund the compounding fee of Rs.6,89,000/- levied and collected
by him on 14.8.2016 vide G.D.No.2824/2016-17, dated 11.8.2016.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan Addl. Government Pleader ORDER Heard Mr.A.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. With consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the 2nd respondent-revisional authority in remanding the matter to the Check Post Officer for fresh consideration. While doing

¶9

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

¶10

so, the 2nd respondent has stated that the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to Form LL, which was downloaded by HPCL, cannot be accepted, as they have not filed any explanation for the mistake committed. In other words, the 2nd respondent came to such conclusion because, there was no communication issued to the said effect with regard to the mistake in TIN number from HPCL. However, the 2nd respondent could have directed the petitioner to produce the necessary records and granted time to do so. This would have been a reasonable approach because the petitioner is not a registered dealer within the State of Tamil Nadu. That apart, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the Check Post Officer, as the said Check Post have now been abolished after GST Act came into force, which is evident from the parawise remarks given by the 1st respondent to the learned Additional Government Pleader.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that HPCL has now given a letter addressed to the 1st respondent dated 08.05.2017 pointing out that the mistake had crept in. The contents of the said letter is as follows:-

¶12

"We have sold 10 KL of MS and 10 KL of HSD vide Invoice number 16003790, dated 10.08.2016 to M/s.Pattabirama Mudaliar with TIN 34910002339. The correct TIN to be printed invoice was 34860023367. However, while

¶13

preparing the transit pass, his old TIN 31910002339 was entered. It may be noted that the change of TIN was due to reconstitution from Partnership to Proprietorship.

¶14

The sale was made to the dealer as mentioned in the invoice."

¶15

In my considered view, the correctness of the above letter cannot be doubted because it is being given by the Government of India Enterprise. Thus, if the letter is accepted, then, the question of collecting compounding fee from the petitioner does not arise. For the above reason the matter requires to be re-examined by the 2nd respondent.

¶16

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set side and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent and produce the letter dated 08.05.2017 given by the HPCL and after considering

¶17

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

¶18

the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date on which the petitioner appears before the 2nd respondent, to enable the petitioner to secure refund of the compounding fee paid by the petitioner, which is now lying in deposit on the file of the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing. No costs.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CCC) Dated: 21.05.2018

¶20

Corrected as per order
dated 18.06.2018 and made in
W.P.No.4408 of 2018.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II)
Dated: 19.06.2018.
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
1 The Deputy Commercial Officer To be substituted to
Pattanur Check Post the order already
Villupuram District despatched on
28.05.2018.
2 The Joint Commissioner (CT)
Vellore Division
Government Building
4, Bharathiyar Street, Fort Round
Vellore 632 001
+1 CC to Mr.A. Ravichandran, Advocate sr 37984.

¶21

W.P.No.4408 of 2018

¶22

SSI(CO) SP(21/05/2018) SP(19/06/2018)

¶23

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

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar, v. The Deputy Commercial Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar, v. The Deputy Commercial 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

Syed Anvarullah Hussiny Vs Mr. Palanikumar

Sri Ramakrishna Yarn Carriers Vs Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

Dr.B.Mahender, Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Competition Team Vs Union of India

M/s.Ponni Mobiles rep by Vs The Assistant Commissioner

G.K.S. Exporters Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)