Allowed

M/s.R.P.S. and Co. v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC6 Dec 2021WP/25435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an impugned Assessment Order for 2014-2015, alleging violation of natural justice due to inadequate opportunity to reply to a Show Cause Notice. The Court allowed the writ, quashed the order, and remitted the case to the respondent for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner remitting 30% of disputed tax.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to remit 30% of disputed tax within 4 weeks; respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits within 30 days.

M/s.R.P.S. and Co. Vs The Assistant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶6

M/s.R.P.S & Co.,

¶7

Represented by its Partner, No.3, Mosuvana Lane, SKC Road, Erode – 638 001.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Brough Road Circle, Erode. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned Assessment Order for the year 2014-2015 bearing Ref.No.33683004050/2014-2015 dated 28.09.2021 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy

¶11

For Respondent : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran

¶12

Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶15

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 on the ground that the order has been passed without giving an adequate opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.04.2018.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's Managing Partner died on 26.08.2021 and therefore the petitioner

¶17

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

¶18

could not file a reply immediately. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained Form-S from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the effect that employer for whom the petitioner firm was rendering works contract was not required to deduct tax and therefore there is no justification in confirming the demand.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits though the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal, the petitioners' case would be eventually remitted back and the matter would require further reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

¶20

Opposing the prayer, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that it is not correct to state that the petitioner was issued with a Show Cause Notice for the first time on 23.08.2021. The learned Government Advocate further submits that earlier a notice was issued on 18.04.2018, to which there was no reply and therefore almost after a lapse of 3 ½ years, the second notice was issued on 23.08.2021 and since there was no reply and the impugned order has been passed based on the records that are available.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶22

The petitioner has been callous in not sending reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.04.2018 and the second notice dated 23.08.2021, though there are mitigating circumstances on account of the death of the Managing Partner of the petitioner on 26.08.2021.

¶23

Since the dispute would require reconsideration by the respondent, this Court is of the view that the impugned order can be set aside and the case be remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration subject to terms. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is quashed subject to the petitioner remitting the amount equivalent to 30% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

On such amount being remitted by the petitioner, the respondent shall proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

In case the petitioner fails to remit the aforesaid amount or to give a reply to the Show Cause Notices dated

¶26

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

¶27

18.04.2018 and 23.08.2021, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders after reiterating the content of the impugned order.

¶28

This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

arb/nst

¶33

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Brough Road Circle, Erode.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.Adithya Reddy, Advocate SR.No.64540

¶36

+1cc to Special Government Pleader(Taxes), SR.No.64741

¶37

W.P.No.25435 of 2021

¶38

and W.M.P.No.26868 of 2021

¶39

GPL(CO) CB(20/12/2021)

¶40

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

M/s.R.P.S. and Co. v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.R.P.S. and Co. 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

M/s. Shree Krishna Electricals Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s.Rajham Refineries Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s. Deepam Roadways Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) Adjudication

S.Syed Mohamedali Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M/s.K.G.Metal Precision Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.zoho Corporation Private Limited Vs The Assistant commissioner of Income Tax