Partly allowed

S.Thajudeen, v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC6 Apr 2018WP/8036/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an assessment order where the appeal remedy was time-barred. Instead of quashing the illegitimate order, the Court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax to treat the order as a show-cause notice for a fresh assessment. Failure to comply renders the petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay 25% of disputed tax within three weeks to treat the assessment order as a show-cause notice for a fresh assessment upon compliance.

S.Thajudeen, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 06.4.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.8036 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.10009 & 10010 of 2018

¶6

S.Thajudeen ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram II Circle, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ...Respondent

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his impugned proceedings made in TIN No.33614702025/ 2012-13 dated 15.7.2015 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, AGP

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order of assessment dated 15.7.2015 for the year 2012-13 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

¶14

Since the petitioner has not availed the appeal remedy, this Court would have been fully justified in rejecting the writ petition. Even assuming that the appeal is to be presented, as on date, the Appellate Authority will not be in a position to entertain the appeal, as it is beyond the condonable period of limitation. That apart, though the impugned order was passed on 15.7.2015, a partial recovery alone has been made on 28.3.2018. Thus, the impugned assessment order remained as a paper order without the tax being recovered.

¶15

As per the impugned assessment order, the balance tax payable by the petitioner is Rs.1,30,104/-, out of which, some

¶16

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

¶17

amount has been recovered and the balance tax to be payable is Rs.97,578/- as per the bank attachment notice dated 27.1.2018. The issue involved in this case pertains to mismatch of the details in the returns filed by the petitioner and the details reflected in the official website of the Department. Therefore, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to reconcile the differences. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not prosecuted the matter since 2015, this Court deems fit to impose a condition so as to enable the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the said condition is complied with, the petitioner is entitled to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of two weeks therefrom. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the condition imposed, the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed giving liberty to the respondent to initiate recovery proceedings. On the other hand, if the petitioner complies with the said condition, the demand of the balance tax and penalty for the assessment year 2012-13 shall remain stayed till fresh orders are passed by the respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.

¶19

Sd ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( C.C.C.) TRUE COPY SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶20

¶21

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram II Circle, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶22

1CC TO MRS. R. HEMALATHA, ADVOCATE SR.NO. 25467 1CC TO THE SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 26029 WP.No.8036 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.10009 & 10010 of 2018 DM 18 APRIL 2018

¶23

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

S.Thajudeen, v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thajudeen, v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

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.v.M.G.Enterprises, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Ss Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Golden Shower Garments, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

P.Madaiyan Vs The Secretary to Government of

M/s.Nouveaux Industries Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.Sunrise Agencies, Vs The State Tax Officer