Allowed

Kaypee Metal Industries, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Mar 2021WP(MD)/10475/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed three writ petitions filed by Kaypee Metal Industries. The court quashed assessment orders passed for years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 because the authorities failed to grant a personal hearing as mandated by law, relying on G.V.Cotton Mills.

What did the court decide?

Assessment orders quashed and matter remanded to the file of the assessing authority to pass orders afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

Kaypee Metal Industries, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.10475 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.10475 to 10477 of 2013 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 &1 of 2013

¶3

Kaypee Metal Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor, K.Palaniappan, 5-A, Lakshmipuram 4^th Street, Madurai. ... Petitioner in all W.Ps.

¶4

-Vs-

¶5

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶6

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement Group-V, Madurai.

¶7

3.The Commercial Tax Officer, Munichalai Road Circle, Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶8

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.10475 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of assessment passed by the third respondent in his TIN No.33274962075/10-11, dated 15.04.2013 received by the petitioner on 19.04.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11 and quash the same and to direct the third respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and an opportunity of being heard for the assessment year 2010-11.

¶9

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.10476 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of assessment passed by the third respondent in his TIN No.33274962075/09-10, dated 15.04.2013 received by the petitioner on 19.04.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 and quash the same and to direct the third respondent to afford an opportunity to the

¶10

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

¶11

1/3

¶12

W.P.(MD)Nos.10475 of 2013

¶13

petitioner to file objections and an opportunity of being heard for the assessment year 2009-10.

¶14

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.10477 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of assessment passed by the third respondent in his TIN No.33274962075/08-09, dated 15.04.2013 received by the petitioner on 19.04.2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 and quash the same and to direct the third respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and an opportunity of being heard for the assessment year 2008-09.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vadivelu (in all Wps) for Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.G.Arjunan (in all W.Ps.) Government Advocate

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

2.Kaypee Metal Industries is the petitioner in these three writ petitions which pertain to the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. The petitioner's assessments for the aforesaid years were sought to be reopened. The respondent issued prerevision notices dated 06.11.2012. The petitioner offered his objections and sought time. However, without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned orders came to be passed. They are questioned in these writ petitions.

¶19

3.I went through the contents of the impugned orders. It is obvious therefrom that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner. In fact, the prayer in these writ petitions is for remanding the matter and affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Though this pleading has not been specifically taken in the affidavit, the learned counsel raised this point as a first ground. I find merit in the said contention.

¶20

4.In G.V.Cotton Mills case, it has been held that grant of personal hearing is mandatory even if reply is not filed. Since this opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner, the orders impugned in the writ petitions are quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the assessing authority to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. These Writ Petitions are allowed. The petitioner had remitted 25% of the tax, since it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was a condition while granting interim order. The said amount

¶21

2/3

¶22

W.P.(MD)Nos.10475 of 2013

¶23

will be adjusted based on the orders to be passed after remand. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (W)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

rmi

¶29

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government,State of Tamilnadu Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶32

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement Group-V, Madurai.

¶33

3.The Commercial Tax Officer, Munichalai Road Circle, Madurai-625 020.

¶34

+3 CC to Mr.A.S.MUJIBUR RAHMAN, Advocate ( SR-8270[F] dated 02/03/2021 )

¶35

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-8415[F] dated 03/03/2021 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)Nos.10475 to 10477 of 2013 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 &1 of 2013 02.03.2021

¶37

KM (15.03.2021) 3P 8C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Kaypee Metal Industries, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaypee Metal Industries, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Gafoor Vs The Inspector of Police

Poolan @ Poologapandi Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M/S.Essakay Enterprises Vs the State Tax Officer

M/s.Sekar and Co. Vs The Principal Secretary /

Sundararajan.S Vs the District Collector

K.K.Automobiles Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(St)