Allowed

Dhanalakshmi Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC12 Apr 2018WP/6356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders for non-compliance with natural justice. It held that the failure to offer a personal hearing and the levying of penalty without prior proposal rendered the orders invalid, remitting them for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to respondent to afford opportunity of personal hearing and redo assessment in accordance with law.

Dhanalakshmi Enterprises Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.Nos.6356 to 6362 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos.7894 to 7900 of 2018

¶7

Dhanalakshmi Enterprises (Adyar Ananda Bhavan) Rep. by its Proprietor, S.Ravi 156, CTH Road, Avadi Chennai-600 054. ... Petitioner in all WPs v. The Commercial Tax Officer No.26, Vivekananda Street Gandhi Nagar Avadi, Chennai-54. ... Respondent in all WPs

¶8

W.P.No.6356/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2010-2011, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶9

W.P.No.6357/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2011-2012, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

W.P.No.6358/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2012-2013, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶13

W.P.No.6359/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2013-2014, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶14

W.P.No.6360/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2014-2015, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶15

W.P.No.6361/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2015-2016, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶16

W.P.No.6362/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN/33651301183/2016-2017, dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same.

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Inbarajan For Respondent : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Govt. Advocate (T)

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a registered dealer

¶24

under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on the file of the respondent and in these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the assessment orders dated 05.03.2018 under the provisions of the TN VAT Act for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 20162017 .

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two

¶26

major contentions challenging the impugned assessment orders. The 1st ,

¶27

being that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the

¶28

petitioner while revising the assessment in exercise of the powers

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

conferred under the TN VAT Act. The 2nd ground being that there was no proposal to levy penalty, yet, the respondent has levied penalty in the impugned assessment orders. Further, there are other issues, which have been raised by the petitioner, which touch upon the merits.

¶32

So far as the 1st issue raised by the petitioner, I find from a

¶33

reading of the impugned orders that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, though the petitioner has requested for the same in their objections dated 02.11.2017. This being a statutory requirement, the respondent could not have completed the assessment without affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶34

So far as the 2nd issue is concerned, it is seen from the reading

¶35

of the notice dated 20.06.2017 show that there was no proposal to levy penalty. However, in the impugned orders the respondent has levied

¶36

penalty, which is violation of principles of natural justice.

¶37

Thus, on the above two grounds alone, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders.

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned

¶41

orders are set side and the matters are remitted back to the respondent
for fresh consideration who shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to
submit their objections, grant an opportunity of personal hearing and redo
the assessment in accordance with law. It is made clear that it is open to
the petitioner to canvass all points before the Assessing Officer. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.04.2018
Index: Yes/No
Rj
To
The Commercial Tax Officer
No.26, Vivekananda Street
Gandhi Nagar
Avadi, Chennai-54.

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J

W.P.Nos.6356 to 6362 of 2018 &
W.M.P. Nos.7894 to 7900 of 2018
12.04.2018

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

Dhanalakshmi Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi Enterprises 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

Anandram Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Superintendent Office of

Tvl.Sri Vasta Real Estates Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

K.Muthuvel Vs Gangandeep Singh Bedi

A.Manickavasagam, Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Babu Roto Tech (P) Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)