Disposed

Tvl. Bali Industries India(P) v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC19 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a writ petition by an assessee challenging attachment of property due to arrears. The Court directed the tax authority to serve assessment orders and restricted the sale of the attached property for 12 weeks, remitting grievances to the proper forum.

What did the court decide?

Direct service directed; sale of attached property stayed for 12 weeks; rights left open for proper forum.

Tvl. Bali Industries India(P) Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P. (MD) No.2329 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.2529 of 2018

¶5

Tvl. Bali Industries India(P) Ltd., represented by its Director Kamesh Babulal Shah ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai.

¶8

2.The Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent issued in Form-4 in TIN.625/2016/A3 dated 01.06.2017 and his consequent communication issued in Roc/625/2015/A3 dated 01.06.2017 to the second respondent to record encumbrance in their office records of the attachment of the petitioner's property, Shed No.87, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur situate in Survey No.637 and 638, for the arrears of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal, without authority of law and against the principles of natural justice.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.A.Chandasekaran For Respondents : Mrs. Srimathi Special Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶14

The petitioner is an assessee registered with the first respondent. The petitioner had suffered an adverse order of assessment for the year 2010-2011 up to 2015-2016. The orders of assessment appeared to have been sent by registered post, but they were returned with an endorsement “Door locked”. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he was never served with any order of assessment and that he came to know about the same only when the impugned orders of attachment were passed. In order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to simplify the issue, the following directions are issued:

¶15

¶16

i) An authorised representative of the petitioner shall go to the office of the first respondent on 22.03.2018 and the first respondent is directed to serve the duly signed and authenticated copies of the assessment orders to the said representative. Limitation for filing appeals would start running only from the date of such service.

¶17

ii) The first respondent shall not bring the attached property to sale for the period of 12 weeks from today. The petitioner's rights have not been adjudicated now and they are left open and the petitioner is entitled to ventilate his grievances before the appropriate forum.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai.

¶25

2.The Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam.

¶26

+1cc to M/S.A.Chandasekaran, Advocate SR.No. 56168

¶27

ORDER MADE IN W.P. (MD) No.2329 of 2018 19.03.2018

¶28

pnn

¶29

JM/RSK/SAR 2/20.03.2018/2P/4C

¶30

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

Tvl. Bali Industries India(P) v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Bali Industries India(P) 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

Shiny Isabella Rahele, Vs the District Elementary

M.Vijay, S/O.Muthusamy, Vs the Joint Director of School

J.Sheela Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Ramanathan Vs the Director of Collegiate

S.Jeyakarthik Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

L.Natarajan Vs the State of Tamilnadu