Disposed

The Jai Maruti Polysack v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC8 Aug 2019WP/8304/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of writ petitions filed by Jai Maruti Polysack challenging the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax officer to levy entry tax on labour charges. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under the TNGST Act before the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an appeal under the TNGST Act before the concerned Appellate Authority within 15 days.

The Jai Maruti Polysack Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.Nos.8304 & 8305 of 2006 and W.M.P.Nos.9242 & 9244 of 2006

¶6

The Jai Maruti Polysack, Rep. by its Partner S.D.Kadirvelu, No.542, Thellur Road, Abdullapuram, Vellore, Vellore District. ...Petitioner in both WPs Vs

¶7

The Commercial Tax officer, Ranipet, Back Year Assessments, Vellore (Rural), Vellore District. ...Respondent in both WPs

¶8

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent dated 08.02.2006 in TNGST 4322475/02-03 (Entry Tax), TNGST 4322475/03-04 (Entry Tax) and quash the same as the same is without jurisdiction and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, since the State does not possess any power to levy any tax on labour charges.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali Kumaran (in both WPs) for M/s.McGan Law Firm

¶10

For Respondent : Mrs.Dhanamadhri, GA (in both WPs)

¶11

Though the petitioner has raised several grounds challenging the orders of the respondent herein dated 08.02.2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would be satisfied, if liberty is granted to him to file an appeal before the concerned authority.

¶12

It is seen that the impugned orders were passed on 08.02.2006 and the petitioner had chosen to file these writ

¶13

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

¶14

petitions immediately thereafter on 15.03.2006, challenging the jurisdiction of the authorities to pass the order. As such, it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner while intending to challenge the orders in time. Nevertheless, now that the petitioner has made his request to grant him liberty to file an appeal, this Court is of the view that such a liberty could be extended to file an appeal.

¶15

In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal under the provisions of the TNGST Act before the concerned Appellate Authority, as against the impugned orders of the respondent herein dated 08.02.2006, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk To The Commercial Tax officer, Ranipet, Back Year Assessments, Vellore (Rural), Vellore District. +1cc to M/s.McGan Law Firm Advocate, S.R.No.67937 +1cc to the Spl Government Pleader(Taxes), S.R.No.68705 RGN(CO) CB(26/09/2019) W.P.Nos.8304 & 8305 of 2006 and W.M.P.Nos.9242 & 9244 of 2006

¶17

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

The Jai Maruti Polysack v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Jai Maruti Polysack v. the Commercial Tax Officer

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

Alagammal Vs State of Tamilnadu

Tvl Dhanya Electric Company Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S Pioneer Feeds and Poultry Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

M/S Prince Polymo Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Meenu Hi-Tech (P) Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.M.M.Forgings Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner