Allowed

M/S. Trimax Umbrella Private v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC29 Nov 2018WP(MD)/10204/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging a tax assessment order. The court held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider submitted F-forms due to a difference in form submission frequency (monthly vs. quarterly). Relying on Allahabad High Court precedent, the court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh assessment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the second respondent to pass orders afresh after giving adequate opportunity.

M/S. Trimax Umbrella Private Vs the Commissioner of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.11.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.10204 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

M/s.Trimax Umbrella Private Limited, Represented by its Director, GEORGE THAYYIL

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o,.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Shencottah-(C), Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Office, No.126, Main Road, Shengottah, Thirunelveli District – 627 809. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in CST/526823/2010-11 dated 31.03.2015 and quash the same and to consequently direct the second respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner is an assessee registered with the second respondent. The petitioner was issued with a pre-revision notice on 27.11.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply on 09.12.2014. Thereafter, on two occasions, the petitioner submitted F-forms. The second set was submitted on 02.02.2015. In fact, there is an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acknowledgment from the office of the second respondent. But, while passing the final order on 31.03.2015, the receipt of the F-form

¶16

¶17

submitted on 02.02.2015 was not taken note of.

¶18

2.On this sole ground, I am inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. The Assessing Officer submits that instead of submitting monthly forms, the assessee chose to submit quarterly forms. If that be so, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported in (2014) 73 VST 295(AII) (Vaibhav Edibles Pvt.Ltd vs. State of U.P and others), the authority must have returned the forms then and there to enable the assessee to rectify the defects. Such a course of action was not taken.

¶19

3.Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar()

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶24

¶25

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o,.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam,

¶26

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶27

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Shencottah-(C), Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Office, No.126, Main Road, Shengottai, Thirunelveli District – 627 809.

¶28

+1cc to Special Government Pleader Advocate in SR.No.98033

¶29

WP(MD)No.10204 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015 29.11.2018

¶30

SKM

¶31

PSSKN SAR1 03.12.2018 2P 4C

¶32

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

M/S. Trimax Umbrella Private v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Trimax Umbrella Private v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramasivam, Vs the District Collector

L.Lakhsmi Vs the District Collector

The Management, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Celine Rose Mary Vs the Chief Educational Officer

Samayachandran, Vs the Union of India

R.Athithan Vs the Insepctor of Police