Allowed

Thillai Maruthagam v. the Commissioner of Commercial

Madras HC30 Jan 2019WP(MD)/13713/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held the impugned tax order liable to be set aside solely because the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing. The petitioner was not permitted to offer objections before the date for hearing was fixed. The writ petition was allowed and matters remitted to the Assessing Officer.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent to pass orders afresh.

Thillai Maruthagam Vs the Commissioner of Commercial — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.13713 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.10700 of 2017

¶5

Tvl.Thillai Marunthagam Represented by its Proprietrix M.Janaki, W/o.Manoharan, No.B-24, 10^th B Cross, Thillai Nagar, Thiruchirapalli-620 018. ... Petitioner vs.

¶6

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Office of the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶7

2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Complex, District Courts Campus, Cantonment, Thiruchirapalli-620 008. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in TIN No: 33383443043/2013-14 dated 22.05.2017 and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For Respondents : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu

¶10

Additional Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that personal hearing was not afforded to the writ petitioner. It is true that in the pre-revision notice, the petitioner has been called upon to avail the opportunity of personal hearing, but then that is no sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner should firstly he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ called upon to offer his objection. After going through the same, the Assessing Officer must fix the date for personal hearing. In this case that procedure has not been adopted.

¶13

¶14

2.Therefore, on the sole ground the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. This Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/ True Copy /

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

To:

¶20

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Office of the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶21

2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Complex, District Courts Campus, Cantonment, Thiruchirapalli-620 008.

¶22

+1 CC to M/s.B.ROOBAN, Advocate ( SR-44041[F] dated 01/02/2019 )

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.13713 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10700 of 2017 30.01.2019

¶24

CP ES/18.03.2019/2P/4C

¶25

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

Thillai Maruthagam v. the Commissioner of Commercial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thillai Maruthagam v. the Commissioner of Commercial

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

Syed Ibrahim Vs the Inspector of Police

Siranjeevi, Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Poovendiran Vs the Inspector of Police

The Match House, NO.11B, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Srinivasa Enterprises Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Murugapandi Vs the Inspector of Police