Disposed

M/S. Senthil Textiles v. the Appealate Assistant

Madras HC14 Aug 2019WP/36637/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a remand order during levy of penalty was dismissed. The Court held the grounds could be raised before the Assessing Officer and granted liberty to do so. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to raise objections before the 2nd respondent within 15 days; writ petition disposed of without costs.

M/S. Senthil Textiles Vs the Appealate Assistant — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.36637 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006

¶6

M/s.Senthil Textiles, Represented by its Managing Partner, Sri A.P.Velusamy, 302, Andipalayam, Mangalam Road, Tirupur – 641 687. ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Pollachi. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur Rural Assessment Circle, Tirupur. ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the 1^st respondent in A.P.No.203/02 dated 27.3.06 and quash the same in so far as the order of remanding back to the 2^nd respondent with regard to the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(b) is concerned.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu

¶10

Additional Government Pleader

¶11

Aggrieved against the order of the 1^st respondent herein, insofar as it relates to remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the penalty under Section 12 (3)(b) of the TNGST Act is attractive or not, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds challenging the order of remand by the 1^st respondent herein. In my view, these grounds cannot be maintained in the writ petition where the order impugned is only a matter of remand and such grounds can be raised before the Assessing Officer. In other words, the alternate remedy available to the petitioner is to go before the Assessing Officer and raise all these points and as such, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be proper. Nevertheless, if the petitioner is given liberty to raise these grounds before the 2^nd respondent herein, the ends of justice could be secured.

¶14

In the light of the above observations, the 2^nd respondent herein is called upon to issue a notice to the petitioner herein and the petitioner in turn is granted liberty to give their objections to the notice, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such objections, the 2^nd respondent herein shall consider the same, in the light of the observations made by the 1^st respondent in the order dated 27.03.2006 and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar jas/hvk

¶18

¶19

1.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Pollachi.

¶20

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

¶21

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur Rural Assessment Circle, Tirupur.

¶22

W.P.No.36637 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006

¶23

sv(co)
nr 30/09/2019

¶24

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

M/S. Senthil Textiles v. the Appealate Assistant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Senthil Textiles v. the Appealate Assistant

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

Mr. Ravi Patil, Vs the Commissioner

K.Thamizharasan Vs the Tamil Nadu State

M/S.Govardhan Spinners Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central

M/S. Tirupur Sri Senthil Vs the Appealate Assistant

Kasthuri, Vs Special Tahsildar

Govinda Reddiar, Vs Special Tahsildar