Remanded

M/S.Sri Sankari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. v. the State Tax Officer (Main)

Madras HC8 Jun 2018WP(MD)/8762/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a final tax assessment order for violating the principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent to decide afresh after affording the petitioner a personal hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside and matter remanded to respondent to afford personal hearing and decide within two months.

M/S.Sri Sankari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer… — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.06.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8762 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.8194 of 2018

¶7

M/s.Sri Sankari Yarns Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, S.M.K.Sudhan, Thadicompu, Kottaiyur, Agaram Village, Vedasandur, Dindigul. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Tax Officer (Main), Dindigul (Rural) Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Dindigul. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in TIN:33665263482/2015-16, dated 02.03.2018 issued by the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent to pass an assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of personal hearing by considering the relevant records and objection filed by the petitioner dated 28.06.2017.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader ******

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Challenging the final order passed by the respondent - State Tax Officer (Main), Dindigul (Rural) Assessment Circle, Dindigul, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner is before this Court.

¶14

¶15

According to the petitioner, a revision notice was issued on 15.06.2017 and he submitted a reply on 28.06.2017, wherein he has sought for a personal hearing to explain the discrepancies, but the respondent passed orders vide proceedings dated 02.03.2018 without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

It is well settled in very many cases that the denial of personal hearing would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order in TIN:33665263482/2015-16, dated 02.03.2018 passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for consideration afresh. The respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with the proceedings without taking much time.

¶17

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

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(W)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The State Tax Officer (Main), Dindigul (Rural) Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Dindigul.

¶23

1 cc TO Mr.S.Karunakar , Advocate in SR No. 67404 + 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 67597

¶24

rsb

¶25

AE/SV MMS/SAR4/20.06.2018/2P/4C

¶26

W.P(MD)No.8762 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.8194 of 2018 08.06.2018

¶27

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

M/S.Sri Sankari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. v. the State Tax Officer (Main)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sri Sankari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. v. the State Tax Officer (Main)

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

R.M.Shanmuganathan, Vs the Director of Town and

A.Balu, S/O.Avadaiappa Pillai, Vs the Director

Durga Devi Vs the Director of Town and

Tvl.Al Madhina Timbers & Saw Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

Fall River Solutions (P) Ltd., Vs Secretary to Govt. of India

M/S.Pandian Motors Vs the Assistant Commissioner