Disposed

Lawn Textile Mills (P) Ltd., v. the General Manager

Madras HC4 Feb 2020WP/13756/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a communication regarding the rescheduling of Industrial Finance Scheme tax payments. Addressing confusion over jurisdiction between responding government officials, the Court directed the constitution of a committee to review the petitioner's representation within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Constitution of a committee to consider the petitioner's representation within thirty days.

Lawn Textile Mills (P) Ltd., Vs the General Manager — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P. No. 13756 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013

¶6

Lawn Textile Mills (P) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director
K. Duraisamy,
24 A, Anna Street,
15, Velampalayam,
Tirupur. ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The General Manager,
District Industries Center,
Erode – 1.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC),
Tirupur Rural Circle,
Tirupur.
3. The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Tirupur – 641 607. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the First Respondent in R.C. No.0048/D3/2012 dated 25.03.2013 quash the same and consequently direct the First Respondent to re-fix the schedule of payment of tax by granting 15 months payment holiday from October 2012 and commence from 01/14 to 12/18.

¶8

The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to quash the communication dated 25.03.2013 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Erode.

¶9

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

¶10

By the impugned communication, the Petitioner has been informed that the said Department i.e., the First Respondent is not competent to re-schedule the repayment as per the guidelines in force and therefore has directed the Petitioner to approach the Respondents. Prior to that, the Commercial Tax Department has also intimated the Petitioner that they do not have any powers to relax the conditions of the deferral scheme or rescheduling of the deferral amount and therefore only the First Respondent is competent to pass appropriate orders for rescheduling the repayment of deferred tax.

¶11

The facts of the case are that the Petitioner was sanctioned a deferral scheme on 01.10.1999 in terms of a communication dated 29.11.1999 of the Second Respondent. The deferral period under the aforesaid communication was to commence from 2009 up to 2017.

¶12

It is the contention of the Petitioner that due to intermittent power shortage which plagued the State during 2011, it was unable to produce the goods so as to service the IFST Loan and therefore it approached the Respondents from December 2012 which culminated in different communications of the Respondents stating that each of the Respondents were not competent but the other Respondent was competent to take a decision as to whether there can be any re-scheduling of the deferral amount sanctioned on 29.11.1999.

¶13

The counters filed by the respective Respondents indicates that each of the Respondents are not competent to take a decision but only the other Respondent was competent to take a decision as to whether the IFST payment period can be rescheduled.

¶14

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

¶15

Since there is some confusion as who is the competent authority to take a decision as to whether the IFST repayment can be re-scheduled, a committee consisting of a Senior Officer for the District Industries Center and Commercial Tax Department may be constituted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said committee may call upon the Petitioner to consider the representation of the Petitioner and dispose the same within a period of thirty days thereafter.

¶16

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

¶17

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶19

// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
arb
To
1. The General Manager,
District Industries Center,
Erode – 1.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC),
Tirupur Rural Circle,
Tirupur.
3. The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Tirupur – 641 607.
+1cc to Mr.S.Ravee Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.9195.
+1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.9608.
W.P. No. 13756 of 2013
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2013
NR(CO)
CSR: 10.03.2020

¶20

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

Lawn Textile Mills (P) Ltd., v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lawn Textile Mills (P) Ltd., v. the General Manager

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

M/S.Parry Infrastructure Company P Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax

D.Venkataraman, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Tamil Nadu Agricultural Vs Commissioner of Customs

Southern Petrochemical Vs Union of India

Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Stanco Traders Vs the Union of India