Disposed

Balasubramaniam Enterprises v. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

Madras HC18 Feb 2020WP/13473/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed an intermina assessment order under Section 25 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, holding it effectively a show cause notice, directed the respondent to complete assessment within three months and furnish specific documents and registration details.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to pass final assessment order within three months and furnish specific documents.

Balasubramaniam Enterprises Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P. No. 13473 of 2012

¶6

Balasubmramaniam Enterprises Private Limited, 43-B, 4^th Main Road, Nanganallur, Chennai – 61.

¶7

Rep. by its Managing Director, A. Mathiyalagan

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Velacherry Assessment Circle, 19, 4^th Main Road, Nanganallur, Chennai – 61. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records of the respondent in TIN No.33090987211/2011-12 dated 28.03.2012 and the consequential proceedings in No.33090987211/2011-12 dated 02.05.2012, and quash the same.

¶10

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.03.2012 and 02.05.2012 bearing reference No.TIN/33090987211/2011-2012, dated 24.02.2012 passed under Section 25 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

¶11

The impugned order is based on the returns filed by the petitioner and on scrutiny, notice dated 24.02.2012 issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any reply/objections. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner approached the respondent and had asked them to furnish two documents.

¶12

Since the assessment year itself had come to an end, by the time, the present writ petition was filed, I am of the

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

view that the respondent can be directed to pass a final orders of assessment. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of M/s. Rohini Mills Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director K.G.Mageshkumar, in W.P.No.3252 of 2011, dated 16.03.2011.

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned order which stands quashed shall be treated as a show cause notice. If necessary, the respondent may also issue a corrigendum to the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and complete the assessment within a period of three months thereafter. The respondent is also directed to furnish the details of the dealers whose registration were cancelled pursuant to which the impugned was initiated and two documents required by the petitioner if same are available.

¶17

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III-MDU) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssi To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Velacherry Assessment Circle, 19, 4^th Main Road, Nanganallur, Chennai – 61.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.S.Ravee kumar, Advocate SR.14130 +1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes) SR.14344

¶19

W.P. No. 13473 of 2012

¶20

NR(CO) CB(17/06/2020)

¶21

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

¶22

Balasubramaniam Enterprises v. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramaniam Enterprises v. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Star Health and Allied Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Sri. P.Kamalanathan - (Died) K.R.Pradheep (Petitioner) Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Vs State of Tamilnadu

Parvathy Textiles, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Arihant Foundations Vs Joint Commissioner of Income

M/s.Avon Hydraulics & Eng. Vs The Assistant Commissioner