Remanded

Tvl. Maj.Beedi Manufacturers, v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC21 Aug 2019WP/25261/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a writ petition challenging a commercial tax assessment made under best of judgment. The court set aside the order due to lack of details on how best of judgment was applied and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with a personal hearing. The assessment must be completed within 3 months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside and matter remanded to the 1st respondent to reconsider the issue afresh after personal hearing.

Tvl. Maj.Beedi Manufacturers, Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

W.P.No.25261 of 2006

and

M.P.No.1 of 2006

and

W.M.P.No.4163 of 2019

¶10

Tvl.MAJ Beedi Manufacturers, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Faziur Rahman,

¶11

No.7D, Subedhar Abdullah Khan Street, Rahanathpala, Vellore. ...Petitioner

¶12

¶13

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Vellore North Assessment Circle, C.T.Buildings, Fort Round, Vellore - 1.

¶14

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), C.T.Buildings, Fort Round, Vellore - 1. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in CST No.623521/200304 dated 09.05.2005 and the connected revisional proceedings dated 16.02.2006 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of the Act.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Soundararajan

¶17

For Respondents: Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, Spl.GP

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

One of the main grounds raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition challenging the assessment order is that the Assessing Officer had observed that there are minute differences found to the naked eye between the check post copy and the dealer's copy and therefore, has come to the conclusion that the dealers have maintained a duplicate set of invoices during the assessment year 2003-04. On such an observation, the Assessing Officer had added an amount of Rs.5,94,855/-, which is three times for probable omission and defects.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aspect of inter-state sale of goods requires to be established by the Assessing Officer, for the purpose of levying any tax on the probable omission and defects. The learned counsel would also submit that there is no clarity in the order, as to how the Assessing Officer had determined the probable omission and defects.

¶22

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the Assessing Officer had come to the conclusion on the basis of his best of judgment on the available materials, which powers are vested with him under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order.

¶23

In my view, if the Assessing Officer had given further details, as to on what basis he had applied his best of judgment, the petitioner would have had the benefit of challenging such an order before the Appellate Authority and in view of the lack of details in the assessing order, as to how the best of judgment was applied by the Assessing Officer, it would be appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh.

¶24

In the light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned assessment order dated 09.05.2005 for the assessment year 200304, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Assessing Officer shall endeavour to complete the assessment, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

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

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

-s/d-

¶28

Assistant Registrar

¶29

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
hvk
To
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I,
Vellore North Assessment Circle,
C.T.Buildings,
Fort Round, Vellore - 1.
2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT),
C.T.Buildings,
Fort Round, Vellore - 1.
+1 cc to M/s.Special Government pleader sr72201
W.P.No.25261 of 2006
and
M.P.No.1 of 2006
and
W.M.P.No.4163 of 2019
vsnII(co)
aa19/09/2019

¶30

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

Tvl. Maj.Beedi Manufacturers, v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Maj.Beedi Manufacturers, 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

D.Dhanraj, Vs 1. the T.N.H.B.

Mrs. Nihar Fathima Vs the Tamilnadu Housing Board

Sri Aravindar Vidhyalaya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Glob International Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Ruchi Soya Industries Vs the State Industries Promotion

M/S. Hoel Oriental Towers Vs State of Tamilnadu