Dismissed

Tvl. Anbu Agency, v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Madras HC7 Jan 2021WP(MD)/112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a rejected representation under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, hearing the matter by consent, dismissed the petition while directing the respondent to serve an additional copy without extending limitation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to serve one more copy on the petitioner, not extending limitation; Writ Petition dismissed.

Tvl. Anbu Agency, Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2021

¶4

Tvl. Anbu Agency, Represented by its Proprietor, K.Thirugnanasampantham, 24, Vaigai Thenkarai Salai, Arappalayam, Madurai. ... Petitioner -Vs-

¶5

The Deputy State Tax Officer, West Veli Street Assessment Circle, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶6

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 20.12.2019 within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Court.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶10

2.All that the petitioner wants is the disposal of the petition mentioned application filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.

¶11

3.When the matter was taken up for disposal, the learned Special Government Pleader informs the Court that the application has been rejected as early as on 13.03.2020 and it was also communicated by registered post. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law. The petitioner's counsel on instructions states that the order has not been received till date. I do not want to go into the factual aspect. However, I direct the respondent to serve one more copy on the petitioner herein but this will not extend the limitation.

¶12

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

¶13

1/2

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2021

¶15

4.Leaving open the petitioner's right, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶18

// True Copy //

¶19

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

ias

¶21

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.

¶22

To:-

¶23

The Deputy State Tax Officer, West Veli Street Assessment Circle, Madurai.

¶24

+1 CC to SGP ( SR-662[F] dated 08/01/2021 )

¶25

+1 CC to M/s.S.KARUNAKAR, Advocate ( SR-574[F] dated 08/01/2021 )

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2021

¶27

07.01.2021

¶28

KG (CO) NR (04/02/2021) 2P : 4C

¶29

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

¶30

2/2

Tvl. Anbu Agency, v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Anbu Agency, v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

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

Rajendran Vs The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Alagar Vs The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Sevathiveeran Vs The Assistant Director

Udhayakumar Vs the Government of India

Manikandan, Vs the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining

Duraimanickam.R Vs The Superintendent of Police