Disposed

M/S.Kerala Small Industries v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC23 Jun 2021WP/11504/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking to quash penalty proceedings, the High Court, due to the efflux of time, did not examine merits. It directed the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to consider the petitioner's representation, afford an opportunity for personal appearance, and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks, affording opportunity for personal appearance.

M/S.Kerala Small Industries Vs the Deputy Commercial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.11504 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.13533 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.2333 of 2005

¶6

M/s.Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Post Box No.16, Gandhi Nagar, Kochi 682 020.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer – III, Thoothukudi.

¶10

2.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

rep. by its Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli. ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in CST:472870/82-83, quash the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2004.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran (Government Advocate)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to quash the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 26.02.2004.

¶16

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has already paid tax as applicable. With reference to the penalty portion, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer passed the impugned order without considering the objections as well as the judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the 1^st respondent on 01.03.2004 and even prior to that, the

¶17

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

¶18

petitioner submitted his objections on 19.02.2004. Neither the objections filed before issuing the impugned order, nor the representation submitted subsequent to the impugned order are considered by the 1^st respondent with reference to the principles already adjudicated and concluded. In view of the efflux of time of more than 17 years, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case with reference to the records available with the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is a Small Industries Development Corporation owned by the State of Kerala and they are struggling even to run the small industries in the State and therefore, the authority must consider the objections as well as subsequent representations with reference to the facts as well as the legal position explained by the petitioner.

¶19

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that both the facts and legal provisions elaborated in their representation are not considered. In view of the facts and circumstances, the 1^st respondent/ Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-III, Thoothukudi is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 01.03.2004 and by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and personal appearance, if any request is made, and pass orders on merits, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to enclose all the relevant documents as well as the judgments relied upon along with the order passed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is at liberty to submit their demands or representations, raising additional grounds, if otherwise.

¶20

4.With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

gsa To

¶26

1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer – III, Thoothukudi.

¶27

2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli Division,

¶28

Tirunelveli.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate SR.No. 29106 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 29340

¶30

W.P.No.11504 of 2004 RLD(CO) B.VC(22.07.2021)

¶31

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

M/S.Kerala Small Industries v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kerala Small Industries v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

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

Wardha Solar (Maharashtra) Private Limited Vs The Union of India

V.S.Issac College of Education Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.S.Jameeluddin Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Cholamandalam Investment Vs Deputy Commissioner of

Sunrise Knitting Mills, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S. Motorola India (P) Ltd., Vs the Special Assist. Commercial