Allowed

Tvl.S.v.K.Glass House, v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC29 Jan 2018WP/696/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an ex parte assessment order under the TNVAT Act where natural justice was violated due to lack of personal hearing and consideration of late-filed objections. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and remanded for fresh consideration with a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with personal hearing and re-do assessment on merits.

Tvl.S.v.K.Glass House, Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.01.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.696 to 701 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.867 to 872 of 2018 697, 698, 699, 700, 701 of 2018

¶6

Tvl.S.V.K.Glass House, Represented by its Partner, R.Somasundaram, No.105, Sankar Garden, Srirangapalayam Road, Vincent, Salem – 636 007

¶7

...Petitioner in all the WPs Vs.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner(ST), Salem Town North Assessment Circle, Salem.

¶9

...Respondent in all the WPs

¶10

Prayer in all the Writ Petitions: 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 in TIN.33342663185/2011-12 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 20152016, 2016-2017 respectively dated 05.09.2017 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan

¶12

Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶13

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value

¶14

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

¶15

Added Tax, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as "the TNVAT Act"] and the Central Sales Tax Act [in short "the CST Act"], 1956, is aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 05.09.2017 under the provisions of the TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2011-12.

¶16

3.The short ground on which the impugned assessment order has been challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. I find that the respondent has completed the assessment exparte, because the petitioner did not file objections to the revision notice dated 29.05.2017. However, the objections have been filed on 13.07.2017 and received by the office of the respondent and an acknowledgment has been given in the letter delivery book. Therefore, the contention that no objections were filed is incorrect.

¶17

4.For the above reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner on 13.07.2017, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and re-do the assessment on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kak/maya To

¶19

The Assistant Commissioner(ST), Salem Town North Assessment Circle, Salem.

¶20

+1 cc to Special Govt Pleader taxes High Court, Madras Chennai sr 7163

¶21

+1 cc to Mr.R.Senniappan Advocate sr 6398

¶22

skv(co) aa02/03/2018

¶23

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

Tvl.S.v.K.Glass House, v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.S.v.K.Glass House, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Srinivasan, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

United Agro Care (India) Pvt. Vs The Managing Director

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd, Vs Union of India

Sri Vedagirieswarar Education Vs the Chief Commissioner of

M/S.C 2 I Vs The Assistant/ Deputy

M/s.Nandi Marketing, Vs The Director General of