Partly allowed

M/S.Krishna and Co. v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC1 Aug 2019WP/17206/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a sales tax order, the Court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order as it failed to address the petitioner's denial of holding a specific trademark and lacked reasoning. The circular was quashed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned circular quashed; matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration allowing petitioner 30 days to submit additional objections.

M/S.Krishna and Co. Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.17206 of 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2008

¶6

M/s.Krishna & Co., 13-A, Manickapuram Road, Palladam. ...Petitioner vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Palladam. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST/6240035/2004-05 and quash the proceedings dt.30.05.2008 issued therein and further direct the respondent to follow the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Acts Cell I/40003/2002 dt.27.6.2002.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Chandran

¶8

For Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶9

The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST/6240035/2004-05 and to quash the proceedings dated 30.05.2008 issued therein and further to direct the respondent to follow the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Acts Cell I/40003/2002 dt.27.6.2002.

¶10

2.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶11

3.One of the main grounds raised by the petitioner is that the order impugned is a non-speaking order since a specific stand was taken by the petitioner by way of a reply to the notice dated 31.01.2007, wherein they had denied of holding any trademark of “KC Agmark Ghee”. The very basis for which the petitioner has been made liable under Section 3-J of the TNGST Act is that he holds the trademark of “KC Agmark Ghee” and such a decision has been arrived at in the impugned order, without

¶12

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

¶13

reference to the objections made by the petitioner nor substantiating as to how such a decision was arrived at. As such, the non-consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner and the reasons for arriving at a conclusion by the respondent could be termed as a non-speaking order and hence the petitioner would be justified in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, it would be appropriate that the matter be reconsidered by the respondent afresh.

¶14

4.In the light of the above observations, the impugned circular No.Acts Cell I/40003/2002 dated 27.6.2002 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit additional objections along with any other documents he wishes to rely upon, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent herein shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

5.With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connection miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Palladam. 2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.B.Raveendran, Advocate SR.No.66106 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader(Taxes) Sr.No.66479 AKM/18.09.19 /2P-5C/

¶16

W.P.No.17206 of 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2008

¶17

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

M/S.Krishna and Co. v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Krishna and Co. v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

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

M/S.Iocee Exports Limited, Vs the Joint Commissioner (Ct)

Trichy Distilleries & Chemical Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its

M/S.Eureka Systems and Vs the Secretary to Government

Indian Institute of Vs Govt., of Tamilnadu

Tvt. Hotel Windsor Castle, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S.Tafe Access Limited, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer