Disposed

M/s.Igp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner,(St)(Fac)

Madras HC23 Apr 2021WP/29756/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order rejecting a refund claim. The Court held that the petitioner exhausted the writ remedy prematurely without availing the statutory revision under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act and directed the petitioner to approach the Revisional Authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act; no order as to costs.

M/s.Igp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23-04-2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.29756 of 2018

¶6

M/s.IGP Engineers Private Limited, \Represented by its Authorised Signatory, No.79, Valmiki Street,

¶7

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041.

¶8

... Petitioner vs.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner, (ST) (FAC), Esplanade Assessment Circle, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent and to quash the assessment proceedings in TIN No.33690100107/2014-15 dated 01.10.2018 as illegal and direct the respondent to refund the excess amount of Rs.59,98,846/- as per the assessment order in Form P for the assessment year 20142015 in TIN 33690100107/2014-15 dated 23.09.2016 and to issue any further direction.

¶11

For Petitioner :Ms.Adithya Reddy

¶12

For Respondent :Mr.M.Hariharan, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

(Taxes).

¶14

The order issued by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner in proceedings dated 01.10.2018, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for refund is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶15

The petitioner states that the representation was submitted to the Authority, pointing out the clerical error with

¶16

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

¶17

reference to the returns filed for the month of January 2015, a sum of Rs.60 lakhs was wrongly deducted from their available ITC as refund claimed for export sales. The petitioner was deemed to be assessed accordingly for the year 2014-2015 under Section 22 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNVAT Act, 2006', in short).

¶18

The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the respondent raised the preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner should have applied for refund under Section 18(3) of the TNVAT Act, within 180 days by filing Form W under Rule 11(2), since the ITC represents ITC towards exports. However, the said appeal is disputed by the writ petitioner.

¶19

This Court is of the considered opinion that such disputed facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences to be produced by the respective parties before the Competent Authority.

¶20

In the present case, a revision is provided under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act.

¶21

Admittedly, the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the revisional remedy contemplated under the Act. The Principles of Law expects that an aggrieved person has to exhaust the statutory remedies available and the writ petition is to be filed only after exhausting the remedies contemplated. Moreover, there are certain disputed facts and circumstances raised.

¶22

The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the application is to be filed within a period of 180 days and the petitioner has filed the application beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner states that such a fact is incorrect and they have got valid reason for filing an application. However, those disputed facts are to be adjudicated by filing an appeal before the Revisional Authority, more specifically, under Section 54 of the Act.

¶23

The High Court cannot conduct such roving enquiry with reference to the disputed facts and circumstances, which is to be done based on the documents and evidences.

¶24

In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 54 of the Act, for the purpose of redressing the grievances. In the event of filing any such revision petition, the Appellate Authority

¶25

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

¶26

has to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner.

¶27

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶29

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Svn
To
The Assistant Commissioner, (ST) (FAC),
Esplanade Assessment Circle,
Chennai-600 001.
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.25269
+1cc to Mr.Adithya Reddy, Advoctate Sr.24910
WP No.29756 of 2018
sg[co]
srg 09/07/2021

¶30

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

M/s.Igp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner,(St)(Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Igp Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. 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 Citadel Fine Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

S.Ellammal Vs Atulya Misra IAS

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs P.S.Janardhanan

S.Ganesan Vs The Asst. Commissioner of

M. Mathakakshmi Vs K. Nandhakumar,Ias

M/S.Madras Race Club Vs the Deputy Commissioner of