Partly allowed

K.M.R.Rathna Sami, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC25 Feb 2020WP/9661/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court did not quash revenue recovery proceedings. Instead, it directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding settlement amount of Rs.6,51,774/- within 30 days to stop recovery and obtain a settlement certificate. The writ petition was otherwise disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.6,51,774/- within 30 days. Recovery proceedings to cease. Writ petition disposed.

K.M.R.Rathna Sami, Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.02.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.9661 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

K.M.R.Rathna Sami Partner, Kamatchi Textiles, 369/2, Salem Main Road, Kumarapalayam. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Sankari (FAC), Sankari. 2.The Joint Commissioner (CT), Salem Division, Salem. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in his order in NK1653/2002/A3/dated 19.2.2014 along with Form No.4 dated 19.2.2014 and to quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Inbarajan For Respondents : Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap Government Advocate (T) O R D E R

¶8

The petitioner has challenged the impugned revenue recovery proceedings to recover an amounts of Rs.22,55,787/for the Assessment Year 2002-2003.

¶9

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application on 18.08.2010 under Section 5(i) of the Tamilnadu Sales Tax Settlement of Arrears Act, 2008. However, the respondents have not passed any order and therefore it was not open for the respondent to initiate in the impugned recovery proceedings and therefore same is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ liable to be quashed.

¶10

3.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that notices were issued to the petitioner as early as 04.10.2012 & 10.04.2013. Both the noties were returned unserved. As per theses said notices, the petitioner was called upon to pay the additional amount of Rs.6,51,774/-. As an additional amount to be paid for settling the case under the provisions of the aforesaid scheme under the Act was not paid, the case was not settled. Therefore, recovery notice was issued on 19.07.2018.

¶11

4.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

5.Though a notice asking the petitioner to pay the additional amount of Rs.6,51,774/- was issued directing the petitioner to the same, it had remained unserved on the petitioner.

¶13

6.Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I direct the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,51,774/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

7.In case the petitioner complies with the above direction within the aforesaid period, the respondent shall accept the petitioner's application and shall desist from the revenue recovery proceedings further. The respondent shall thereafter issue appropriate Certificate of Settlement of case to the petitioner.

¶15

8.Writ Petition stands disposed. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶17

//True copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

jas/jen

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Sankari (FAC), Sankari.

¶23

2.The Joint Commissioner (CT), Salem Division, Salem.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.N.Inbarajan, Advocate SR.No.16085
W.P.No.9661 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
LN(CO)
GMY(10/06/2020)

¶25

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

K.M.R.Rathna Sami, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.R.Rathna Sami, v. the Assistant Commissioner

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.Nrs Earth Movers, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Valliammai Society Vs the Director General of Income

The Aminjikarai Mosque & Vs the Commissioner

Balasubramanian Vs the State, Represented by

M/S.K.Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Vs Director General of Foreign

M/S.Axles India Limited, Rep B Vs Customs & Central Excise Settl