Dismissed

Tvl.Rabbani Electricals v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC24 Sept 2020WMP/13983/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a clarification Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed in a disposed writ challenge against a tax assessment order. The court held that issues regarding a subsequent appellate order on limitation cannot be addressed via clarification and referred the petitioner to pursue the matter via appropriate legal recourse while preserving their rights.

What did the court decide?

Clarification Writ Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; petitioner's rights to assail the Appellate Authority's order in a manner known to law were preserved.

Tvl.Rabbani Electricals Vs The State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.09.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.M.P.No.13983 of 2020 in W.P.No.24329 of 2019

¶6

Tvl.Rabbani Electricals Represented by its Partner No. 22, Tindivanam Road Gingee ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The State Tax Officer Gingee ...Respondent

¶8

Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India to clarity the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24329 of 2019.

¶9

WP.No.24329/2019 Prayer:

¶10

To call for records of the respondent in order of Assesment in TIN 33664740749/2016-17 dated 14/02/2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to pass fresh orders after adopting the findings laid down by this Court under identical circumstances.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Prasanna Kumar For Respondent : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.J.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner in captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' ('WMP' for the sake of brevity) and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Revenue Counsel for sole respondent are before me in this web-hearing on a video-conferencing platform.

¶14

2.'W.P.No.24329 of 2019' (hereinafter 'main WP' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was taken up with the consent of both sides and disposed of by me vide an order dated 22.08.2019.

¶15

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

¶16

3.Main WP pertains to challenge to a revised Assessment Order dated 14.02.2018 made by the respondent under Section 27(1)(a) of 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TNVAT Act' for the sake of brevity and clarity. To be noted, there is a mandamus limb also to the prayer, which pertains to direction to the respondent to pass orders afresh.

¶17

After hearing both sides inter alia on the ground that opportunity has been given to the writ petitioner/assessee before the impugned order of revision and on the ground of effective efficacious alternate remedy by way of a statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act is available, main WP came to be disposed of by me vide 22.08.2019 order.

¶18

Learned counsel on both sides i.e., learned counsel for petitioner in captioned WMP and learned Revenue counsel for respondent submit without any disputation or disagreement that this order made by me in the main WP has attained finality and has given legal quietus by both sides. In other words, the matter has not been carried in appeal.

¶19

Post disposal of main WP, this Court is informed that writ petitioner preferred an appeal before jurisdictional Appellate Authority concerned by way of an appeal petition dated 30.01.2020 and this Court is informed that this appeal is under Section 51 of TNVAT Act.

¶20

The jurisdictional Appellate Authority has passed an 'order dated 11.02.2020 bearing reference Rc.A1/76/2020' (hereinafter 'said order' for the sake of brevity and clarity) returning the appeal petition along with annexures primarily on the ground that it is barred by limitation, there is a cap for condonation of delay (wrongly mentioned as 'gap' in said order is learned Revenue counsel's say). Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the statutory appeal petition is within the tolerance band for delay or in other words within the condonable cap, the Appellate Authority should have either condoned the delay or returned the papers and given an opportunity to the writ petitioner / assessee. This Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion on this submission as this is a clarification petition.

¶21

If the petitioner/assessee is aggrieved by the said order made by the jurisdictional Appellate Authority, it is for the writ petitioner/assessee to pursue the matter by

¶22

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

¶23

assailing the said order in a manner known to law, but that cannot be done by way of a clarification petition in a disposed of writ petition. As would be evident from the articulation in Paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of captioned WMP, vide 22.08.2019 order, this Court has left all questions on merits open.

¶24

Therefore, this Court finds no ground to entertain this captioned clarification WMP and the same cannot but be negatived.

¶25

Before parting with this case, this Court notices that main WMP has been filed by another counsel i.e., counsel other than the learned counsel, who is now before me in captioned clarification WMP. Though this Court could have refused to entertain the captioned WMP on this sole ground, considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case and the nature of submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner in captioned WMP, this Court has examined the clarification plea and therefore this order will not serve as a precedent on this aspect of the matter.

¶26

At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner in captioned WMP seeks leave of this Court to preserve the rights of the petitioner/writ petitioner - Assessee to assail the said order i.e., order of jurisdictional Appellate Authority in a manner known to law. This request is acceded to. If the petitioner/writ petitioner - Assessee is so advised and if the writ petitioner chooses to assail the said order in a manner known to law, it is made clear that dismissal of captioned clarification WMP will not impede the same or in other words it will not come in the way.

¶27

Captioned WMP dismissed albeit preserving the rights of the petitioner to the limited extent set out supra. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

gpa

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1.The State Tax Officer, Gingee.

¶32

+1cc to M/s.J.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.31368 +1cc to Special Government Pleader(taxes).S.R.No.31542

¶33

W.M.P.No.13983 of 2020 in W.P.No.24329 of 2019

¶34

GPA(CO)
KKV/09/10/2020

¶35

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

Tvl.Rabbani Electricals v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Rabbani Electricals v. The State 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

The Board of Trustees of Tuticorin Port Trust Vs M/s.Tebma Shipyards Ltd.

M/s.India Infoline Commodities Limited, Represented by its Authorised signatoryS.Shankara Narayanan Vs Mr.K.Balasubramanian

C.S.Sivanandan (Constituent) Vs M/S.Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.

The Official Liquidator Vs Ashraf abdul Rahman Buhari

The Official Liquidator, as the liquidator of M/s.Erode Rana Textiles Processors Private Limited, Vs M/s. International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

The Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of M/s.Sarveswara Benefit Fund Limited (In Prov. Liqn.) Vs Nil