Allowed

M/s. Nagaraj & Co. P Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC22 Mar 2018WP/6505/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, by a common order, allowed writ petitions filed by a company against commercial tax orders passed in 2014. The petitions challenged the lack of personal hearing and reliance on an Enforcement Wing report. The Court set aside the orders on natural justice grounds, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed tax before the matter is remitted for fresh consideration with a

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioner directed to pay 30% of disputed tax within three weeks; matter remitted to 3rd respondent for fresh consideration after hearing.

M/s. Nagaraj & Co. P Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.6505 to 6511 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.8058 to 8064 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Nagaraj & Co P Ltd.,

¶7

rep by its Executive Director Raju Seshadrinathan No.4/262, Old Mahalingapuram Road, Kandanchavadi, Chennai – 600 096, now at No.156, 2^nd Main Road, Developed Plot, Perungudi Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 086. .. Petitioner in all W.Ps. Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Addl), Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle, No.141, Burmah Colony, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Group – IV, Enforcement Wing (South), PAPJM Buildings, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶8

3.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Sholinganallur Assessment Circle, No.141, Burma Colony, 5^th Floor, 1^st Main Road, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. .. Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶9

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in TIN:33980920907/2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 dated 21.4.2014 (in WP.Nos.6505, 6507, 6065, 6511/18);and TNGST:0920907/200607 dated 21.04.2014 and (in WP.0506/18); and the consequential recovery notice issued by the 3^rd respondent in Rc.Nos.149/2018/A3, 148/2018/A3, 150/2018/A3, 153/2018/A3, 151/2018/A3, 152/2018/A3 dated 13.03.2018;(in WP.Nos.6505, 6506, 6508 to 6511/18) and Rc.No.144/2018/A3 dated 08.03.2018 (in W.P.6507/18) and quash the same and further direct the 3^rd respondent to grant an opportunity of being heard and pass orders without being influenced by the Enforcement Wing report https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ forwarded by the 2^nd respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran (in all W.Ps.)

¶11

For Respondents: Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri (in all W.Ps.) Government Advocate (Tax)

¶12

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶13

By consent, the main Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶14

2.The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petitions to issue Writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 21.04.2014 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and the consequential recovery notice issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 13.03.2018 and 08.03.2018 and to quash the same and further direct the 3^rd respondent to grant an opportunity of being heard and pass orders without being influenced by the Enforcement Wing report forwarded by the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

3.It is the case of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent had passed the impugned orders dated 21.04.2014 without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and that the impugned orders have been passed by the 1^st respondent following the report of the Enforcement Wing forwarded by the 2^nd respondent, which according to the petitioner is erroneous.

¶16

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing and not giving an opportunity of personal hearing is violative of principles of natural justice. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the 1^st respondent had relied upon the report of the Enforcement Wing forwarded by the 2^nd respondent while passing the impugned order, which is also erroneous.

¶17

5.Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate (Tax) taking notice for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner is challenging the impugned orders passed in the year 2014, the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration on payment of at least a portion of the disputed tax.

¶18

6.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing, which is violative of principles of natural justice, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Since the petitioner is challenging the orders passed in the year 2014 now, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay at least 30% of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the disputed tax for each of the assessment years before the

¶19

3^rd respondent as a condition precedent. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside on condition the petitioner paying 30% of the disputed tax before the 3^rd respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of the 30% of the disputed tax, the 3^rd respondent is directed to take up the matter and decide the matter afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶20

7.With these observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To 1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Addl), Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle, No.141, Burmah Colony, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Group – IV, Enforcement Wing (South), PAPJM Buildings, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Sholinganallur Assessment Circle, No.141, Burma Colony, 5^th Floor, 1^st Main Road, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. + 1 cc to MR. V. Sundareswaran, Advocate Sr.21930 + 1 cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.22499

¶22

W.P.Nos.6505 to 6511 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.8058 to 8064 of 2018

¶23

RV(CO) EU(05/04/2018 )

¶24

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

M/s. Nagaraj & Co. P Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nagaraj & Co. P Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Abi Steels, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.v.S.S.Agencies, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

V.Seetharaman Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Concepts and Devices Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Novares India Automotive Vs State Tax Officer

M/s.Eshwari Petro Products Vs The Commercial Tax Officer