Partly allowed

Cri Pumps Pvt. Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner(St) (Fac)

Madras HC1 Nov 2021WP/23507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five writ petitions challenging tax refund disallowance orders were filed. The Court held that although personal hearing is not statutorily mandatory under the applicable tax rules, the respondent authority had voluntarily issued notices inviting a hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders and fixed a date for a personal hearing, directing the authority to reconsider the refunds therea

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting out TIN33162201952/2013-14 for May to September 2013 are set aside; personal hearing fixed for 12.11.2021; respondent to redo refund proceedings within three weeks.

Cri Pumps Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2021

¶3

 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

 W.P.NOS.23507, 23510, 23516, 23517 AND 23522 OF 2021

¶6

W.P.No.23507 of 2021

¶7

CRI Pumps Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its
Chief Financial Officer
K.Srinivasa Raghavan
7/46-1, Keeranatham Road
Saravanampatti
Coimbatore

¶8

 ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Annur Circle
Coimbatore

¶11

 ... Respondent

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records on the file of the respondent herein in TIN
33162201952/2013-14 for the month of May dated 13.09.2021 for
the month of June dated 13.09.2021; for the month of July dated
13.09.2021; for the month of August dated 13.09.2021; for the
month of September dated 13.09.2021; and to quash the same and
to direct the respondent herein to refund the amount of
Rs.20,48,754/-, Rs.22,31,227/-, Rs.15,82,964/-, Rs.13,14,975/-,
Rs.17,98,117/- respectively for the month of May 2013, June
2013, July 2013, August 2013, September 2013.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Inbarajan

¶14

For Respondent: Ms.Amrita Dinakaran
 Government Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

This common order will govern the captioned five main
writ petitions.

¶18

2. In the captioned writ petitions, five different
orders, all dated 13.09.2021 made by the respondent have been
assailed. To be noted, all the five orders disallow refund
claimed by the writ petitioner/dealer, the details of the
impugned orders and writ petitions are as follows:

¶19

`SI.No` `.`	`Date of` `the` `Impugned` `order`	`Reference of` `the Impugned` `order`	`Month for` `which refund` `has been` `claimed`	`Writ Petition`
`1`	`13.09.202` `1`	`TIN33162201952` `/2013-14`	`May 2013`	`W.P.No.23507` `of 2021`
`2`	`13.09.202` `1`	`TIN33162201952` `/2013-14`	`June 2013`	`W.P.No.23510` `of 2021`
`3`	`13.09.202` `1`	`TIN33162201952` `/2013-14`	`July 2013`	`W.P.No.23516` `of 2021`
`4`	`13.09.202` `1`	`TIN33162201952` `/2013-14`	`August 2013`	`W.P.No.23517` `of 2021`
`5`	`13.09.202` `1`	`TIN33162201952` `/2013-14`	`September` `2013`	`W.P.No.23522` `of 2021`

¶20

3. The impugned orders are adverbatim the same, the
difference being only the months i.e., various months in the
Assessment year 2013-14 for which refund has been claimed. The
point on which challenge to the impugned orders is predicated is
also common.

¶21

4. Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for writ petitioner /
dealer adverting to the impugned orders submits that the
impugned orders were preceded by a notice from the respondent
being notice dated 03.09.2021 calling upon the writ petitioner
to produce certain documents within seven days. These notices
were served on the writ petitioner on 04.09.2021, writ
petitioner went before the respondent and sought for time as the
same pertains to eight year old records, but without granting

¶22

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

¶23

time, impugned orders have been made. It was also pointed out
that in the notice dated 03.09.2021, it has been made clear that
an opportunity of personal hearing would be granted, but the
same was not granted.

¶24

5. Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, learned Revenue counsel accepted
notice on behalf of lone respondent. On instructions, learned
Revenue counsel made submissions, a summation of which is as
follows:

¶25

a) It is not imperative to grant personal
hearing for refund applicant under Section 18(3)
of 'the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006,
(Tamil Nadu Act No.32 of 2006)' [hereinafter
'TNVAT Act' for the sake of convenience and
clarity] read with Rule 11(2) of 'Tamil Nadu
Value Added Tax Rules, 2007' [hereinafter 'TNVAT
Rules' for the sake of brevity];

¶26

b) In a refund application, going by the
language in which Rule 11(2) of TNVAT Rules is
couched, the dealer / writ petitioner should file
the refund application along with copies of
invoices and bills related to purchases;

¶27

c) In the instant case, writ petitioner
did not respond to 03.09.2021 notices and produce
the records;

¶28

d) a personal hearing was, in fact,
granted.

¶29

6. This Court, with the consent of learned counsel on
both sides, took up the main writ petition as the matter turns
on a very narrow compass.

¶30

7. A careful perusal of the impugned orders reveals that
it does not mention that personal hearing was granted. To be
noted, 03.09.2021 notices were served on the writ petitioner /
dealer on 04.09.2021, excluding 04.09.2021, 7 days elapsed on
11.09.2021 and the impugned orders have been made one working
day later on 13.09.2021. Therefore, the likelihood of personal
hearing if at all could have been only on 12.09.2021, but the
law is well settled that an impugned order cannot be improved by

¶31

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

¶32

filing a counter affidavit. In this case, the impugned order
does not mention anything about personal hearing and therefore,
the submission now that a personal hearing was granted and that
too in the short one day interval does not hold water. There is
no difficulty in accepting the submission of learned Revenue
counsel that it is not statutorily imperative to grant personal
hearing with regard to refund applications under Section 18 (3)
read with Rule 11 (2) of TNVAT Act under TNVAT Rules
respectively. However, in this case, the respondent has chosen
to grant a personal hearing to the writ petitioner at his
discretion. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is only
appropriate that the writ petitioner is granted the opportunity
of personal hearing.

¶33

8. Regarding the submission that the refund application
which has to be filed in Form W should be filed along with
copies of invoices and bills of related purchases, there is no
difficulty in accepting that sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of TNVAT
Rules is clearly couched in this language, but here again
respondent by his own volition has chosen to send a
communication to the writ petitioner calling upon the writ
petitioner to produce those documents. Therefore, it is
appropriate to give an opportunity to produce those documents
followed by a personal hearing.

¶34

9. Before concluding this matter, it is made clear that
the above is recorded to say that the language of sub-Rule (2)
of Rule 11 of TNVAT Rules is clear that an applicant qua refund
should annex the invoices or bills related to purchases along
with this refund application and personal hearing is not
statutorily imperative and therefore this order will not serve
as a precedent in these aspects of the matter. In the case on
hand, the respondent has chosen to call upon the refund
applicant to produce documents and has also chosen to give an
opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, this order is
being passed.

¶35

10. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits, on
instructions, that the writ petitioner will now produce the
documents and go for a personal hearing on a given date. By
consent of both sides, the date, time and venue of personal
hearing is fixed as 12.11.2021 (Friday) at 03.00 p.m. in the
office of the sole respondent. Learned counsel for writ

¶36

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

¶37

petitioner, on instructions, submits that no adjournment will be
sought on that day and the writ petitioner will co-operate for
disposal of the matter. Captioned five writ petitions are
disposed of by making the following order:

¶38

a) Five impugned orders, all dated
13.09.2021,bearingreference
TIN33162201952/2013-14 for the months of May
2013, June 2013, July 2013, August 2013 and
September 2013 are set aside solely on the ground
that personal hearing has not been granted to
writ petitioner though pre-impugned order notices
offer one to the writ petitioner and the writ
petitioner could have produced the documents
sought for though pre-impugned notices give such
an opportunity;

¶39

b) By consent of both sides, personal
hearing is fixed on 12.11.2021 (Friday) at 03.00
p.m. in the office of the respondent;

¶40

c) To be noted, consent is only with
regard to date, time and venue of personal
hearing, but the order is a contested order;

¶41

d) The respondent shall, after holding
personal hearing, redo the refund applications
i.e., re-do the legal drill under Section 18(3)
of TNVAT Act read with Rule 11(2) of TNVAT Rules
and conclude the same as expeditiously as his
business would permit and in any event within
three weeks therefrom i.e., by 03.12.2021;

¶42

Captioned writ petitions are disposed of by making the
above said order giving aforementioned directives. There shall
be no order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Deputy Registrar(CS)

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

GPA/NST

¶48

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

¶49

To

¶50

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Annur Circle,
Coimbatore.

¶51

+1cc to Mr.N.Inbarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.56480

¶52

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader (Taxes), S.R.No.57291

¶53

 W.P.Nos.23507, 23510, 23516, 23517 and 23522 of 2021

¶54

VBM(CO)
RLP(08/11/2021)

¶55

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

Cri Pumps Pvt. Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner(St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cri Pumps Pvt. Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner(St) (Fac)

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

Selvarani Vs The Commissioner

M.Sathyan, Vs The Commissioner

N.K.Nandhagopal Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

C.K.Vedavalli Vs Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewage Board (C.M.W.S.S.B)

M/s.Greenstar Fertilizers Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Asst Commissioner of

M/s.Greenstar Fertilizers Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Asst Commissioner of