Disposed

M/S.Elgi Rubber Company v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Dec 2021WP/11694/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a tax demand notice under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003. The Court held that alternate remedies under the Act must be exhausted. The High Court cannot adjudicate merits directly; parties must approach the Appellate Authority, considering the petition pendency as condonation grounds.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands disposed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Directions to approach Appellate Authority for merits adjudication.

M/S.Elgi Rubber Company Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.12.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.11694 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and W.M.P.No.21875 of 2019

¶6

M/s.ELGI Rubber Company Limited

¶7

2000, Trichy Road, Coimbatore -5 rep.by its Vice President S.R.Venkatachalam.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Secretary to Government Energy Department, Government of Tamilnadu,

¶11

Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 002.

¶12

The Chairman cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

¶13

144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶14

The Chief Accountant, Chief Electrical Inspectorate, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32.

¶15

The Electrical Inspector, 58, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 2.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating to the Notice of Assessment dated 25.11.2013 under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 issued by the 3^rd Respondent and consequential Letter No.TIN 51 TO 57/EI/TIN/E.Tax/2013 dated 27.12.2013 issued by the 4^th Respondent and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Palani Selvaraj For R1 : Mr.M.Rajendiran For R2 to R4 : No Appearance

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The notice of assessment under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 in Form - E1 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶22

The petitioner is a HT Consumer and in order to alleviate the power crisis, the petitioner set up wind mills by investing huge money within the jurisdiction of the respondents 3 and 4.

¶23

The notice of assessment under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 was issued on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the returns under Section 8 of the Act in respect of the period from June 2007 to March 2013 in respect of captive consumption through the Wind Electric generators in Tirunelveli District.

¶24

Based on the notice, the notice contains Annexure and the consequential proceedings dated 27.12.2013 was issued demanding a sum of Rs.14,36,955/-.

¶25

Thus, the notice was issued and the petitioner submitted a letter dated 19.12.2013, and based on the details received along with the letter submitted by the Writ Petitioner, the Tax on Electricity Generated through Wind Mill Units and Captively Consumed at the premises of the petitioner for the period from January 2007 to September 2011 was worked out.

¶26

It is a demand raised though the impugned notice states that the period is up to March 2013, the period was confined to September 2011 in demand notice. The authorities competent confined the period based on the letter sent by the petitioner on 19.12.2013 and the demand is raised. The impugned demand dated 27.12.2013 reveals the captive consumption units sold to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Delay period and Penalty interest etc. All such details require examination of original documents and evidences. The High Court cannot conduct an adjudication with reference to such original documents and evidences to be done by the Competent Authorities or the Competent Forums constituted for the purpose of such adjudication.

¶27

This Court is of the considered opinion that the alternate remedy contemplated under the Acts, Rules and Regulations is to be exhausted by the aggrieved persons. At the first instance, original adjudication if done in a Writ Proceedings without verifying the original records, then there is a possibility of prejudice to be caused to either of the parties. Thus, it is always preferable to exhaust the remedies

¶28

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

¶29

contemplated under the Acts and Regulations enabling the High Court to exercise the power of judicial review in an effective manner. The findings of those authorities are greater assistance for the High Court to form an opinion more specifically in such matters where certain technicalities and intricacies are involved. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that the process through which a decision is taken by the Competent Authorities is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, but not the decision itself. Thus, the parties are bound to go for an adjudication for establishing their case with reference to the evidences.

¶30

This being the factum established, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to approach the Appellate Authority or the Competent Forum constituted for such adjudication, and in the event of filing any such appeal or application, the authorities competent shall consider the period during which the Writ Petition was pending before this Court for the purpose of condoning the delay and the issues raised between the parties are directed to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

raja/shr

¶37

¶38

The Secretary to Government Energy Department,

¶39

Government of Tamilnadu,

¶40

Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 002.

¶41

The Chairman cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

¶42

144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶43

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

¶44

The Chief Accountant,

¶45

Chief Electrical Inspectorate,

¶46

Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate,

¶47

Guindy, Chennai - 32.

¶48

The Electrical Inspector, 58, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 2.

¶49

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.69856

¶50

W.P.No.11694 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and W.M.P.No.21875 of 2019

¶51

AD(CO) SU(12/01/2022)

¶52

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

M/S.Elgi Rubber Company v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Elgi Rubber Company v. the Secretary to Government

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

North Korattur Tvs Nagar Vs The Member Secretary

Als Constructions, Vs The Project Director

Immaculate Heart of Mary Vs The Union Territory of

K.Velmurugan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Jayamani Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Grama Ezhai Mattrumthikkatror Vs the District Social Welfare