Disposed

M/s.Khivraj Motor Pvt., Ltd., v. The Commissioner of

Madras HC15 Nov 2019WP/14220/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the writ petition to seek a review of a tax clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, directing that the Commissioner must reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner and other automotive dealers, ensuring consistency with a prior judgment. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to seek a review of the impugned clarification; ordered Commissioner to hear all interested parties afresh.

M/s.Khivraj Motor Pvt., Ltd., Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.No.14220 of 2016 and WMP.No.12429 of 2016

¶6

M/s.Khivraj Motor Private Limited, Rep. Director Barath Kumar Chordia, No.623, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. Vs.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶9

2.The Assistant Commissioner [CT], Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records on the file of the 1^st respondent in his clarification in Lr.No.K.Dis. Acts CellIV/22328/2002 dated 09.07.2002 quash the same and further direct the 1^st Respondent to re-do the clarification in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raveekumar

¶13

For Respondents : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner before me challenges a clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 09.07.2002 and direction to the 1^st respondent to re-do the clarification in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.

¶16

1/3

¶17

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

¶18

Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶19

Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate for the revenue point out that the identical issue as arising in this writ petition has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s.ABT (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another in W.P.No.29576 of 2005, (order dated 02.01.2018). While considering this challenge in the aforesaid matter, the learned Single Judge had directed the petitioner to file a petition seeking review of the impugned application and upon such petition being filed, the 1^st respondent therein was directed to issue notice to the petitioner and all other Automotive Dealers in the State of Tamil Nadu including any Association representing the same, and pass orders afresh.

¶20

In the interests of consistency, this writ petitioner is also permitted to seek a review of the impugned clarification and the Commissioner shall, if such review is sought, consider the same after hearing the petitioner as well as all other Automotive Dealers in the State of Tamil Nadu. This Writ Petition is disposed as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Asst.Registrar (CS V )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶28

2.The Assistant Commissioner [CT],

¶29

Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,

¶30

Chennai.

¶31

+1 cc to Mr.S.Ravee Kumar Advocate sr95456

¶32

+2 cc to the Special Government Pleader(Taxes) sr95798, 95773

¶33

W.P.No.14220 of 2016 and WMP.No.12429 of 2016

¶34

aa13/01/2020

¶35

2/3

¶36

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

M/s.Khivraj Motor Pvt., Ltd., v. The Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Khivraj Motor Pvt., Ltd., 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

Maxx Mobilink Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

R.S.M.Electricals, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Sree Ramcides Chemicals Vs the Additional Director

M/S.Gtn Textiles Limited Vs Secretary to the Government

M/s. Devashi Enterprises Vs The Joint Commissioner (Ct)

Kothandaraman R. Vs T. Udayakumar