Disposed

M/s.Rajsriya Automotive Industries P Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Nov 2021WP/16509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order in two writ petitions where the High Court disposed of the matters relying on an interim Supreme Court order, directing that respondents refrain from collecting tax on maximum demand charges.

What did the court decide?

Disposed in terms of the interim order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys vs. Union of India.

M/s.Rajsriya Automotive Industries P Ltd. Vs The State… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.NOS.16509 AND 16515 OF 2019

¶6

M/s.Rajsriya Automotive Industries Pvt. Ltd., Unit VIII, HTSC No.544, No.86-89, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Exphase-1, Hosur – 635 126, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, P.Durai Babu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.16509 of 2019

¶7

Naga Limited Foods, HT SC No.073, No.3/315, Melakandamangalam Village, Thiruchuli, Aruppukottai, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, M.Rajkumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.16515 of 2019 .Vs.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. ... 1^st Respondent in both W.Ps. The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... 2^nd Respondent in both W.Ps. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, Krishnagiri. ... 3^rd Respondent in W.P.No.16509 of 2019

¶9

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

¶10

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶11

... 3^rd Respondent in W.P.No.16515 of 2019

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents from demanding and collecting tax on maximum demand charges from the Petitioners in H.T.Sc.No.544 and H.T.Sc.No.073, respectively, as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi on 31.08.2012 in S.L.P.(C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012, etc. batch in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys & Etc. vs. Union of India and others etc.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj in both W.Ps.

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh in all W.Ps. Government Advocate

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

Writ Petitions are filed seeking a direction to forbear the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents from demanding and collecting tax on maximum demand charges from the Petitioners in H.T.Sc.No.544 and H.T.Sc.No.073, respectively, as per the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012, etc. batch in the case of M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys vs. Union of India.

¶18

As the issue involved in both Writ Petitions is one and the same, cases are taken up for disposal by a common order.

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the issue involved in the present Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21902 of 2019. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

¶20

“3. The issue raised in the present Petition is being settled against the Petitioner in terms of the Division Bench judgment in W.P.Nos.159 of 2008 and etc. (batch) decided on 15.06.2012 and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having

¶21

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

¶22

entertained the Special Leave Appeals against the said judgment bearing Special Leave (Civil) Nos.24685 to 24719 of 2012, dated 31.08.2012, with an interim direction restraining the Respondents therein from taking any coercive steps for disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner therein, subject to that petitioner paying all the charges/dues except tax calculated on the basis of maximum demand, it is agreed that, the present Writ Petition be disposed of in the terms aforesaid, with the agreement that the ultimate fate of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also govern the present petitioner and the same interim order would continue to enure for the benefit of the Writ Petitioner during the pendency of the Special Leave Appeals.”

¶23

As the said interim order passed by the Apex Court governs the Writ Petitioners herein, the above Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the said order passed by the Apex Court. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.16152 and 16153 of 2019 in W.P.No.16508 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.16155 and 16156 of 2019 in W.P.No.16515 of 2019 are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

(aeb)

¶29

¶30

The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶31

The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶32

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, Krishnagiri.

¶33

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

¶34

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.61038 +2ccs to Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.60552

¶36

W.P.NOS.16509 AND 16515 OF 2019

¶37

VBM(CO) PBS/13/12/2021

¶38

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

M/s.Rajsriya Automotive Industries P Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Rajsriya Automotive Industries P Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Vignesh Vs The State of TamilNadu Rep by

Dr.Aslam Yosuff Vs The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services

A.Stalin Vs The Executive Engineer

M/s.Maruti Cottex Ltd. Vs Department of Handlooms and

A.Smiley ( Minor aged 17 years) Vs The Director General

R.Jeyaa Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer