Dismissed

Keerthima Agency v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC21 Jan 2021WP/1146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted petitioners to file a statutory appeal against assessment orders within four weeks, relying on Supreme Court directives extending limitation due to the pandemic. The writ petitions for quashing were dismissed with this liberty granted.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file statutory appeal within four weeks; writ petitions dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Keerthima Agency Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.1146 & 1150 of 2021 and WMP. Nos.1280,1281, 1287 & 1289 of 2021

¶6

M/s.Keerthima Agency, Prop: thiru.Munisamy Thanikachalam, S/o.A.Munisamy,

¶7

Plot No.69, Havildhar Munisamy Cross Street, Thanigaisundari Illam, Gandhi Nagar, Arakonam, Vellore - 631 002.

¶8

…Petitioner in W.P. No.1146 of 2021

¶9

Thiru.Gumbada Govindasamy Raghu, Prop- M/s.Mercury Agency, Plot No.69, Havildhar Munisamy Cross Street, Thanigaisundari Illam, Gandhi Nagar, Arakonam, Vellore - 631 002.

¶10

…Petitioner in W.P. No.1150 of 2021 Vs The State Tax Officer, Arakonam, Vellore District. ... Respondent in both WPs

¶11

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his impugned proceedings made in GSTN:33ALRPT9225E1ZQ/2017-18 and GSTN:33ASTPR2645F1zG/2017-18 both dated 13.03.2020 and the consequential electronically issued Form GST DRC 07 vide Reference No:ZA330320001078C and ZA330320001081P both dated 14.03.2020, quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar in both WPs For Respondents : Mr.ANR.Jayapratap, Government Advocate in both WPs

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

The challenge in the present matters are to orders of assessment dated 13.03.2020, passed in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘Act’) for the period 2017-18. Learned counsel for the petitioners today

¶15

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

¶16

requests that the petitioners may be permitted to file a statutory appeal challenging the impugned order. Limitation in regard to the same stands extended by series of judgments of the Supreme Court, such as order dated 23.03.2020 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020, titled as “In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation”, where the Supreme Court has taken note of the on-going pandemic and has extended the limitation including limitation for filing of appeals.

¶17

In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioners are permitted to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today, subject to all other statutory compliances including payment of statutory pre-deposit.

¶18

These writ petitions are dismissed granting liberty as above. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar (C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

To The State Tax Officer, Arakonam, Vellore District. +2cc to Mr.S.Rajasekar, Advocate SR.No.3668 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader(Taxes),SR.Nos.3817 & 3818 AKM/18.02.21 /2P-5C/

¶20

Writ Petition Nos.1146 & 1150 of 2021 and WMP. Nos.1280,1281, 1287 & 1289 of 2021 21.01.2021

¶21

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

Keerthima Agency v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keerthima Agency 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl. R.N.Subramani Shri Krishna Traders Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer -2

K.Ezhilarasan Vs The Assistant commissioner (St)(Fac)

M/s.Accent Pharma, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Vgp Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner

Studio Tara Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.Ig International Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner of