Disposed

K.M.Chinnadurai, v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC24 Aug 2021WP/9240/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Madras High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging commercial tax notices and assessments. Holding that writs against show cause notices are entertainable only on limited grounds and facts require full adjudication, the Court directed respondents to admit written objections and grant personal hearings to decide on merits under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed; respondents directed to admit written objections and grant personal hearing to decide on merits.

K.M.Chinnadurai, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 24.08.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.9240, 9241, 9242, 9243, 9244, 9245, 9246, 9247 and 4604 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2011

¶6

K.M.Chinnadurai ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9240, 9241, 9242, 9243 of 2011 Susheela Durai ...Petitioner in W.P.No.9244, 9245, 9246, 9247 of 2011

¶7

M/s.Sakthi Murugan Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. No.2/15 Main Road Kariagoundanur Vadakkalur, Annur Coimbatore. ...Petitioner in W.P.No.4604 of 2011

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC), Avinashi Assessment Circle, Respondents W.P.No.9241,9242, Avinashi. 9243,9244,9245,9246,9247 of 2011

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Zone III, Coimbatore.

¶11

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Coimbatore.

¶12

R.Sakthivel PROPRIETOR:M/s.Sakthi Murugan Agro Foods 93 Mettupalayam Road Ayimapadur Pirivu, Oddarpalayam PO Annur-641 653.

¶13

The Commercial Tax Officer Avinashi, Coimbatore. Respondent in W.P.No.4604 of 2011

¶14

K.Sivakumar, PROPRIETOR: M/s.Sakthi Murugan Trading CO. 2/16 Kariagoundanur, Vadakkalur Post, Annur.

¶15

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

¶16

Prayer in W.P.No.9240 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.Nil/2001-02, quash the notice dated 29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the first respondent not to assess the turnover of the fourth respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein, in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

¶17

Prayers in WP.Nos.

¶18

W.P.No.9241 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2002-03 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶19

W.P.No.9242 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2003-04 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶20

W.P.No.9243 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2004-05 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶21

W.P.No.9244 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2001-02 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶22

W.P.No.9245 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2002-03 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.9246 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2003-04 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶25

W.P.No.9247 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.NIL/ 2004-05 quash the Notice dt.29.03.2011 issued therein and further direct the First Respondent not to assess the turnover of the Fourth Respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein in the absence of any such provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959.

¶26

W.P.No.4604 of 2011 : Calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No.2081835/ 2003-2004 quash the proceedings dated 18.02.2011 issued therein and further direct the first respondent not to club the turnover of the second respondent with that of the petitioner both being separate and distinct legal entities.

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Government Advocate for R1 to R3 in all WP's For Respondent : No appearance for R4

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made a submission that the writ petitions are filed in the year 2011 and there are subsequent developments at certain grounds raised by the petitioners are decided in favour of the petitioners. However, all these grounds are raised before the authorities competent for complete adjudication of the issues as raised in the writ petitions.

¶30

A writ against a show cause notice is entertainable only on certain limited grounds. A writ against show cause notice may be entertained, if such notice is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction directly in violation of the provisions of the statute or an allegation of malafides are

¶31

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

¶32

raised against the authorities concerned and even in such cases where an allegation of malafides are raised, whom such allegation is raised must be impleaded as party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In all other circumstances, the noticee are expected to respond to the notice by submitting their objections/defence statements along with the documents or evidences if any and contest the matter. The High Court cannot adjudicate all such disputed facts elaborately in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is to ensure the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authority in consonance with the provisions of law, but not the decision itself. This being the principles to be followed. The petitioners are at liberty to submit their objections/defence statements, documents and evidences within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order and on receipt of any such objections from the petitioners, the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and by following the procedures as contemplated. If any request for personal hearing is made, such an opportunity is also directed to be provided to the petitioners.

¶33

With these directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

Sgl

¶38

¶39

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Avinashi Assessment Circle, Avinashi.

¶40

The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Zone III, Coimbatore.

¶41

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Coimbatore.

¶42

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

¶43

The Commercial Tax Officer, Avinashi, Coimbatore.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.B.Raveendran, Advocate, S.R.No.42879

¶45

+3cc to the Special Government Pleader (Taxes), S.R.No.42785, 42791, 42790

¶46

W.P.Nos.9240, 9241, 9242, 9243, 9244, 9245, 9246, 9247 and 4604 of 2011

¶47

SVI(CO) RGA(21/09/2021)

¶48

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

K.M.Chinnadurai, v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Chinnadurai, v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpathi S Aghoram Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Vasanti Ram Narayan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Vasanti Ram Narayan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Vs The Additional Director Genera

Tvl.Kalpathi Investments Pvt. Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

M/S.Bmw India Pvt. Ltd, Vs State of Tamil Nadu