Remanded

Tmt.R.Geetha v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC26 Aug 2019WP/37199/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed an assessment order passed under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act without a personal hearing. It held that the absence of a hearing violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions regarding turnover estimation, remanding the matter to the authority to pass a speaking order after a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order dated 05.11.2014 is set aside and remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and passing of a speaking order after giving due opportunity for personal hearing wit

Tmt.R.Geetha Vs The Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.Nos.37199 & 37200 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶8

Tmt R.Geetha, “Pralayam Enterprises”, No.26, Nellikuppam Road, Semmandalam, Cuddalore. ..Petitioner in both WPs. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Cuddalore Town, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Cuddalore – 607 001. ..Respondent in both Wps.

¶9

Common Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order Assessment Order Tin No.33454382692 / 2008 – 09 and 2009 – 10 dated 05.11.2014 of the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Adhithya Reddy

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate

¶12

... in both Wps. COMMON ORDER

¶13

Though the petitioner herein has raised several grounds challenging the impugned assessment order, one of the main ground raised by the petitioner herein is that personal hearing was not extended to the petitioner, when the impugned assessment order was passed.

¶14

It is seen that under the impugned assessment order, the estimation of turnover under Section 22 (4) to the best of judgement has been held to be correct. Since the writ petitioner has not been extended with personal hearing, the same would amount to violation of the statutory provisions as well as the

¶15

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

¶16

principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to remand back the matter for fresh consideration.

¶17

In the light of the above observations, the impugned assessment order dated 05.11.2014, is set aside and remand back the matter to the respondent herein for fresh consideration. After giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner for personal hearing and on consideration of the same, the respondent shall pass a speaking order, in any event within a period of three months from the date of reciept of a copy of this order.

¶18

Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
Pns
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Cuddalore Town,
Commercial Taxes Buildings,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
+1cc to Mr.S.P.Asokan, Advocate, SR.No.72524
+1cc to the Govt.Pleader, Vide Sr.No.73487
W.P.Nos.37199 & 37200 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
Kak(10/10/2019)

¶19

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

Tmt.R.Geetha v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.R.Geetha v. The Assistant Commissioner

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. Hoel Oriental Towers Vs State of Tamilnadu

Tvl. Hotel Yercaud Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Ankit Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S.Vinayaga Inn Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

A.v.M.Charities, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ult

M/S.N.K.Mariappa Nadar Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)