Quashed

M/s.New Shri Mls Maligai v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC9 Dec 2021WP/26162/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order under the TNVAT Act passed without a personal hearing despite a 2018 notice. The case was remitted to the respondent for a fresh determination within 45 days to comply with natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; case remitted to respondent to pass a speaking order within 45 days; liberty to file detailed reply within 30 days.

M/s.New Shri Mls Maligai Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶6

M/s.New Shir MLS Maligai, Represented by its Partner, Mr.J.Kuber, No.153, M.G.Road, Villupuram – 605 602. ... Petitioner

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Villupuram – I. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN:33124681294/2015-2016 dated 13.10.2021 and quash the same as passed contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and also against the Principles of Natural Justice.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.Richardson Wilson

¶11

Additional Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶14

This Writ Petition is disposed at the time of admission on the limited ground that the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 has been passed long after a notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.03.2018. Though the petitioner had not replied to the aforesaid notice, the facts on record also indicates that there

¶15

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

¶16

was no proposal for determining the turn over and above the datas captured in the aforesaid notice. In any event, before proceeding to pass the impugned order, the respondent ought to have called upon the petitioner to come for a personal hearing.

¶17

In case, a notice for personal hearing was granted, perhaps the petitioner would have at least filed a reply. No doubt, the petitioner has been negligent and careless in not filing a reply to the notice dated 12.03.2018, nevertheless, the matter would require a fresh determination by the respondent as the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶18

Considering the same, the impugned order stands quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

The petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed reply within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order passed by the respondent is treated as the corrigendum to the aforesaid notice dated 12.03.2018. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before order is passed.

¶20

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶21

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶22

// TRUE COPY //

¶23

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶24

arb/nst To

¶25

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Villupuram – I.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.P.Rajkumar, Advocate Sr.65130

¶27

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.65930

¶28

W.P.No.26162 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.27616 & 27617 of 2021

¶29

bs[co] srg 20/12/2021

¶30

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

M/s.New Shri Mls Maligai v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.New Shri Mls Maligai v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

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.Aathi Hotel Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Eac)

Tvl.Bhavani Gold House Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Float Glass Centre Vs Union of India

M/s.Casa Grande Civil Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Medical Research Foundation, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.Beverly Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner