A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court set aside an order admitting tax detention by the respondent as arbitrary and illegal for ignoring documents produced by the petitioner despite their exclusion by the Enforcement Wing.
Impugned orders set aside and matter remitted to the respondent to pass orders afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.9016 to 9019 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2015
Guru Bhagavan Granites, Rep. by its Partner, Raja, No.14, Krishnapuram Colony Main Road, 2nd Street, Madurai. ... Petitioner in all petitions
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Chockikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai.
Madurai. ... Respondent in all petitions COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in TIN Nos.33025001449/20092010,33025001449/2010-2011, 33025001449/2011-2012 and 33025001449/2012-2013, dated 30.04.2015 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and direct the respondent to pass an order after considering the objection and documents filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.
(in all petitions) For Petitioner : Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Karunakar.
For Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader.
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioner in these three petitions are one and the same. The assessment years alone are different. The returns filed by the petitioner got concluded on a deemed assessment basis. But then, they were sought to be reopened on the strength of the report of the Enforcement Wing. The petitioner submitted his reply in response to the pre revision notice. However, the impugned orders adverse the petitioner came to be passed. They are assailed in these Writ petitions.
2
officials. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
“ that they had accepted the mistake that the purchases were shown wrongly. They had accepted the defects pointed out at the time of inspection and paid the tax due without any objections. They had filed the copies of purchase bills and revised return. They had also filed the ledger account for the correct purchase turnover accounted for. No copy of the judgment referred by the dealer in support of their contention. They had not produced the above records either before the inspection officer or before the processing officer. Hence, the objections are not acceptable for actual sales suppression and estimation as it is an after thought.”
/True Copy/
To
The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Chockikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai.
+1 cc TO Mr.S.Karunakar, ADVOCATE IN SR NO.97221
+1cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.No.97344 Pmu
MK/ES/RSK/SAR 2/27.12.2018/2P/4C
W.P.(MD)Nos.9016 to 9019 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2015 27.11.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessment officer can ignore material produced by the assessee on the ground that it was not submitted to the Enforcement Wing previously.
Whether the impugned order suffered from a misdirection in law by dictating the assessment officer to rely solely on the Enforcement Wing's report.
Guru Bhagavan Granites, Rep. by its Partner, Raja
The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Chockikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
