Allowed

Tvl.Sree Kodi Pharmacy, v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC22 Feb 2019WP(MD)/12627/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed an impugned commercial tax assessment order dated 23.09.2015 for failing to apply mind to a clerical error by the taxpayer and denying a statutory personal hearing, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order is quashed. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration with an opportunity of personal hearing.

Tvl.Sree Kodi Pharmacy, Vs the Commissioner of — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.02.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD)No. 12627 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD) No. 9542 of 2016

¶6

Tvl.SREE KODI PHARMACY,

¶7

represented by its Partner R. Subramanian S/o.S.P.M. Ramasamy, No.4, Sheba Building,

¶8

East Veli Street, Madurai – 625 001.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.,

¶11

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶12

O/o.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam,

¶13

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

¶15

Kamarajar Salai Assessment Circle,

¶16

Commercial Tax Complex,

¶17

Dr. Thangaraj Salari,

¶18

Madurai – 625 020. ... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in TIN No. 33224822374/2014-15 dated 23.09.2015 and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.B. Rooban for

¶21

Mr.R. Veeramanikandan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.R. Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Assessment order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the second respondent in TIN.33224822374/2014-15 and quash the same.

¶26

2.The case of the petitioner is that they are a registered dealer with the second respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

According to the petitioner, the impugned assessment order

¶28

¶29

dated 23.09.2015 was passed by the second respondent, without proper consideration of the reply, dated 10.09.2015 sent by the petitioner to the second respondent, wherein they have stated that by mistake their TIN number was wrongly mentioned in the reported purchases to the department, instead of the TIN number of seller. The TIN number of the other end seller is TIN No.33154803449 and the petitioner's TIN number is 33224822374.

¶30

According to the petitioner, eventhough in the impugned assessment order it has been mentioned by the second respondent about the wrong mentioning of the TIN Number, without application of mind, the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment order, calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax as well as penalty, which according to the petitioner, they are not liable to pay. In such circumstances, the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned assessment order.

¶31

Heard Mr.B. Rooban for Mr.R. Veeramanikandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The respondents have also filed their counter in the Writ Petition and they have reproduced the assessment order which is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶33

This Court has perused and examined the impugned assessment order. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, eventhough, the second respondent has mentioned in the impugned assessment order about the wrong quoting of the TIN Number of the petitioner instead of the other end seller, namely, M/s.Sarojini Enterprises, the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment order, without taking into consideration, the factual mistake committed by the petitioner inadvertently mentioning the wrong TIN number.

¶34

In the considered view of this Court, the second respondent failed to apply his mind. Further more, as seen from the impugned proceedings, no personal hearing was afforded which is mandatory as held by various decisions of this Court.

¶35

For the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the second respondent has violated the principles of natural justice, by not affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, including the right of personal hearing, before passing the impugned assessment order.

¶36

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order, dated 23.09.2015 in TIN No.33224822374/2014-15 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent, for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to pass a fresh order, after affording https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sufficient opportunity including the right of personal hearing to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to raise all objections

¶37

¶38

available to them under law, and the second respondent, shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

// True Copy //

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

ksa To 1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2) The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kamarajar Salai Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Complex, Dr. Thangaraj Salari, Madurai – 625 020. +1CC to Mr.B.ROOBAN , Advocate SR.No.49268. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader SR.No. 49462. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.12627 of 2016 22.02.2019 DS/ /SAR- (26.03.2019) 3P 5C

¶44

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

Tvl.Sree Kodi Pharmacy, v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Sree Kodi Pharmacy, v. the Commissioner of

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

P. Asai Thambi, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.P.C.Furniture Land, Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S.Sivasakthi Stroes Vs the Commercial Tax Officer -

The Superintending Engineer Vs Tmt Parvathi, W/O.Murugan

Tvl.Kasim Textile Mills(P) Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

U.Ganesan, S/O.Umaieswaran, Vs the Licencing Authority/