Disposed

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows v. Industries Commissioner and

Madras HC16 Dec 2020WP/7245/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for mandamus directing respondents to disburse VAT Subsidy claimed by petitioner forFY 2010-11. Court granted liberty to petitioner to produce documents before the 2nd respondent on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to produce documents; respondent directed to consider representation and earlier cancellation order on merits after hearing.

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows Vs Industries Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.12.2020

¶2

CORAM :

¶3

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶4

W.P.No.7245 of 2015

¶5

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows (India) Pvt. Ltd., 32, Krishnampalayam, 1^st Main Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode – 638 003. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Industries Commissioner and

¶8

Director of Industries and Commerce, Industries and Commerce Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶9

2.The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 638 002. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant and disburse the VAT Subsidy of Rs.15,37,034/- for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (B) Department dated 07.05.2008 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, MSME (B) Department, forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramesh

¶12

For Respondents: Ms.A.Madhumathi,

¶13

Special Government Pleader

¶14

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant and disburse the VAT Subsidy of Rs.15,37,034/- for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (B) Department dated 07.05.2008 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, MSME (B) Department.

¶15

2.It is the case of the petitioner that they are eligible to get disbursement of VAT Subsidy for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 as per the Government Order referred above. However, the respondents contended that by order dated 09.08.2011, the 2^nd respondent cancelled the Eligibility Certificate issued to the petitioner and as such, they are not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entitled to get the disbursement of the VAT Subsidy. Further,

¶16

the respondents contended that the Subsidy was disbursed for the period upto 30.06.2010 and for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.09.2010, the Subsidy was not disbursed, since the petitioner – Unit has not produced the required particulars. So far as the period from 01.10.2010 to 30.06.2011 is concerned, the request made by the petitioner for the disbursement of the VAT Subsidy was rejected for the reason that the Eligibility Certificate was cancelled and that the claim made by the petitioner was belated.

¶17

3.Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a representation dated 21.12.2011 to the 2^nd respondent, however, the 2^nd respondent has not passed any order so far. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2011 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame. That apart, the learned counsel also submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents before the 2^nd respondent to substantiate the claim made by the petitioner.

¶18

4.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in the event of the petitioner producing all the relevant documents before the 2^nd respondent to substantiate the claim made by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent would consider the same and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the earlier order of cancellation passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶19

5.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I give liberty to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents before the 2^nd respondent to substantiate the claim made by them and on receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same, along with the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by them cancelling the Eligibility Certificate issued to the petitioner and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

¶28

1.Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce,

¶29

Industries and Commerce Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶30

2.The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 638 002.

¶31

+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 41541
W.P.No.7245 of 2015
A.SK(18.01.2021)

¶32

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

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows v. Industries Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows v. Industries Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Aruna Constructions Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

B.Gnanasundari, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Kaliyannan Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Farida Banu Vs The Commissioner

K.Chithrakala, Vs The District Registrar

A.Raja Vs The District Collector