Allowed

G.Malliga, v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC5 Oct 2020WP/14115/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the State Tax Officer to dispose of a representation questioning a property attachment order. The petition was granted as an exception due to the petitioner's status as a senior citizen with dependent family members.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to dispose the representation within six weeks after a proper hearing.

G.Malliga, Vs The State Tax Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P. No.14115 of 2020

¶6

G.Malliga .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Tax Officer,

¶9

Chidambaram -1. .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to dispose off the representation issued by the petitioner dated 08.09.2020 and received by the respondent on 14.09.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Ravichandran For Respondent :Mr. ANR.Jayapratap, Government Advocate. O R D E R

¶12

Mr.ANR.Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) accepts notice and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter.

¶13

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent/State Tax Officer, Chidambaram to dispose her representation dated 08.09.2020 received by the respondent on 14.09.2020 wherein, she questions the notice of attachment sent by the respondent to the Village Administrative Officer, Cuddalore District attaching her property in R.S.No.59/5 and R.S.No.47/4.

¶14

Mr.Jayaprathap states that the attachment is based on an order of assessment which has been duly served upon the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, he assures the Court that representation dated 08.09.2020 will be disposed by the Officer within a period of six weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner over video conference or physical hearing as may be

¶15

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

¶16

mutually convenient to the parties, after intimating the date of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say, the officer will apply his mind to the petitioners' request afresh, uninfluenced by any earlier orders.

¶17

Normally this Court would not be inclined to entertain the Writ Petition since the representation is very recent, dated 08.09.2020. However, I make an exception in this case since the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a senior citizen with one physically handicapped son and three daughters, one of whom is a widow.

¶18

This writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vs
To
The State Tax Officer,
Chidambaram -1.
+1cc to Mr.A.Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr.No.32870
+1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes), Sr.No.32863
W.P.No.14115 of 2020
SVI(CO)
GS(21/10/2020)

¶20

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

G.Malliga, v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Malliga, 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

M/s.Gemini Film circuit Vs Income Tax officer

M/s. Ensicomm Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Sivam Associates Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/S.Royal Lions Club Vs The commissioner

Shrimathi Devkunvar Nanalal Vs The state of TamilNadu

M/S.Sun Dye Chem Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)