Dismissed

M/S.Purushothaman Handling v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Mar 2020WP/25357/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to restrain respondents from demanding or collecting Entry Tax for a specific mobile hydraulic truck crane. The court found the petition had become infructuous upon receiving no further submissions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

M/S.Purushothaman Handling Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 10.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.No.25357 of 2009

and

M.P.No.1 of 2009

M/s.Purushothaman Handling Agencies Proprietor T.Purushothaman No.51, Krishnadoss Road Otteri, Chennai 600 012 ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Harbour-I Chennai 600 001 3.The Regional Transport Officer Chennai (North) Chennai ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, praying to forbear the respondents herein or their men, agents, subordinates from demanding or collecting Entry Tax in respect of second – hand Mobiles Hydraulic Truck Crane, Brand – KATO, Model No.NK-300, Colour – Yellow, S/No.CT30844, Chassis No.ZR300-60146, to be registered with the 3^rd respondent herein with new registration mark.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Baaskaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Sathyaraj, Spl.G.P. for R3

¶10

Mr.A.N.R.Pratap,G.A.(Taxes)for R1 & R2

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the relief sought for herein has become infructuous and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶14

2.In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kas
To
1.The Secretary to Government
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Commercial Taxes Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Harbour-I
Chennai 600 001
3.The Regional Transport Officer
Chennai (North)
Chennai
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21653/2020
W.P.No.25357 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶16

SSV(CO) RN(04/06/2020)

¶17

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

M/S.Purushothaman Handling v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Purushothaman Handling v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Senthil Andavar Cotton Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Annamalayar Tyre Vs Commissioner of Customs and

A.Ansari, Vs the Commissioner

The Society of the Daughters Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Premier Shipping Agencies Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S. Kedia Clothing Company, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of