Allowed

M/s.Boyance Infrastructure v. Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC3 Jul 2018WP/7110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an assessment order issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Madras High Court found glaring errors where the respondent ignored the petitioner's reply for the current assessment year and instead relied verbatim on an explanation for a different year without discussion. The court quashed the order and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment with a

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed, the writ petition allowed, and the matter remanded to the respondent for a fresh assessment after taking note of the petitioner's explanation dated 14.4.2015 and afford

M/s.Boyance Infrastructure Vs Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 03.7.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.7110 of 2018 & WMP.No.8977 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Boyance Infrastructure (P) Ltd., rep.by its Authorized Signatory V.B.Manikya Gupta

¶7

...Petitioner Vs

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Poonamallee Assessment Circle, Station : Varadarajapuram, Chennai-123.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in impugned TIN/33661666140/2013-14 dated 28.2.2018 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, AGP

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard both. In view of the glaring errors, which are apparent on the face of the impugned order, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The respondent proposed to revise the assessment for the year 2013-14 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and issued a notice dated 11.3.2015. The petitioner submitted their reply dated 14.4.2015. The respondent, in the impugned order, noted the said reply dated 14.4.2015 in the reference column in S.No.6. However, on a perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the respondent referred to the explanation offered by the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12, by, in fact, verbatim extracting the same and without any discussion, completed the assessment. In my considered view, the assessment has been done without due application of mind and based on irrelevant consideration not germane to the issue involved. These are sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶15

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

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall take note of the explanation dated 14.4.2015, afford an opportunity of personal hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶18

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Poonamallee Assessment Circle,
Station:Varadarajapuram,Ch-123
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Taxes),
S.R.No.:43098.
WP.No.7110 of 2018&
WMP.No.8977 of 2018
KK(CO)
BM 18/07/2018

¶19

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

M/s.Boyance Infrastructure v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Boyance Infrastructure v. 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

M/s.Vedagiri Hi-Tech Spinning Vs The Authority for

Dinesh Chand Surana, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

Tvl.Om Motors, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

K.K. Krishnamoorthy, Vs B.Vanithamani

Tvl.a.S.Enterprises, Vs The State Tax Officer

R.Jayalakshmi Vs The Commercial Tax Officer