Dismissed

Rural Uplift Centre v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC26 Jun 2019WP/15141/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking to quash a clarification letter regarding tax exemption for Tsunami rehabilitation activities and requesting an extension of the exemption period. The bench dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not a registered dealer under the relevant Act and thus ineligible for the exemption.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no interference with the clarification letter dated 22.03.2007.

Rural Uplift Centre Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.15141 of 2007

¶6

Rural Uplift Centre,
Reg.No.31/81,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Adv.A.Maria James,
'Deepam', Thumpali,
Irenipuram Post,
Kanyakumari District. ...Petitioner
Vs
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registeration
(B2) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600009.
2. Commissioner of Re-habilitation,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600008.
3. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli - 627009. ...Respondents
PRAYER:

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings in Letter No.5972/B2/2007-1, dated 22.03.2007, on the file of the 1^st respondent, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to extend the Tax benefit granted under G.O.Ms.No.63, Commercial Taxes and Registeration (B2) Department, dated 12.07.2006, upto 31.03.2007.

¶8

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.A.Hariharan, AGP

¶10

for R1 & R2 Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, GA for R3

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner herein claims to be a NGO carrying out Tsunami rehabilitation activities. They are not registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 29.01.1995, had released the comprehensive relief packages for rehabilitating Tsunami affected fishermen. In G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 12.07.2006, the payment of tax to the dealers for supply of Out Board Motors and other accessories used for country boats and mechanized boats were exempted between 01.04.2005 and 31.03.2006. When the petitioner herein had sought for extension of the exemption period over and above 31.03.2006, by a letter dated 14.11.2006, the respondents had mentioned the expiry of the exemption as 31.03.2007, instead of 31.03.2006. The expiry of the exemption date mentioned as 31.03.2007 is now mentioned to be a typographical error, through a letter dated 22.03.2007 and that the G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 12.07.2006, provides for exemption only till 31.03.2006. The letter dated 14.11.2006, in which the typographical error had crept in, is under challenge in the present writ petition, with a consequential prayer to extend the exemption till 31.03.2007.

¶14

The prayer sought for in the present writ petition cannot be maintained for 2 reasons. Firstly, the petitioner herein is not a dealer registered under the TNGST Act and therefore, cannot seek for such exemption, since the benefits under the Government Order is extended only to such registered dealers. Secondly, the letter dated 22.03.2007 is only a clarification of the earlier letter dated 14.11.2006, which reiterates the period of exemption specified in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 12.07.2006. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the expiry of the exemption period in the Government Order, he ought to have challenged the exemption clause in the Government Order and challenging the clarification letter dated 23.03.2007, will not entitle him to claim for exemption over and above the period granted under the Government Order. Nevertheless, to claim such an exemption, the petitioner requires to be a registered dealer, which registration is conspicuously absent.

¶15

For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

hvk

¶22

¶23

The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registeration
(B2) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600009.
2. Commissioner of Re-habilitation,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600008.
3. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli – 627009.
+1cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.53627
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.53422
W.P.No.15141 of 2007
CP(CO)
CS/29/07/2019

¶24

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

Rural Uplift Centre v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rural Uplift Centre v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New Vs the Chairman and Managing

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New Vs the Chairman and Managing

The Master Club, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Umapathi Vs the District Manager

M/S.Parsn Commercial Complex Vs the Managing Director

M/S. Saradhambika Paper & Vs the Deputy Commercial