Allowed

S.C.Thangam, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Madras HC16 Mar 2021WP(MD)/17404/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an eight-year-old writ petition which had not been disposed of previously. The petitioner alleged that her Tax Identification Number was cancelled without notice. Due to the lack of a counter affidavit or proof of service from the respondents, the court directed them to formally restore the registration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's registration formally within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

S.C.Thangam, Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2013

¶2

S.C.Thangam

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.17404 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner,

¶9

Commercial Tax Office, Nagercoil.

¶10

The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Nagercoil.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to assess the petitioner's returns by revalidating the petitioner's TIN No.33346120847 account and grant such other further reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh For Respondents : Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶16

The assessing officer Thiru.Rajasekaran is also present before this Court through video conferencing.

¶17

The petitioner's counsel states that she is a woman entrepreneur who was engaged in Fancy Store business in Kanyakumari from 1991. She had registered herself as a dealer and her TNGST Registration Certificate number is R.C.No.884295. Her Central Sales Tax number is 459283. She states that she was filing her returns without any default. After coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, she registered herself with the respondents and her TIN number was 33346120847. She states that while so, she was informed orally by the first respondent that her TIN number was cancelled. The case of the petitioner is that she did not receive any show cause notice and she was not served with any order whereby her TIN number was cancelled.

¶18

Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for reoperating her TIN number and assessing her returns. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2013

¶21

Though the writ petition was filed way back in the year 2013, the writ petition itself is being taken up for final disposal after a gap of almost 8 years. Till date no counter affidavit has been filed. The assessing officer asserted before this Court that only after issuance of notice, the petitioner's TIN number was cancelled. When I queried for further details, it appears that he was only making an assertion with the hope that the procedure would have been followed. When the petitioner has made a specific allegation that the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure laid down in the Act were not followed, the same cannot be met by a counter assertion. The respondent must furnish relevant materials to show that due process was followed. Till date the respondents have not filed counter affidavit. They have not produced the copies of the show cause notice as well as the cancellation order and its service on the petitioner herein. Therefore, I have to necessarily proceed on the premise that the assertions made by the petitioner remain uncontroverted.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate prayed for time. I was not inclined to grant any further adjournment. This writ petition is pending for almost eight years. That apart, the writ petition came up for disposal on several occasions. On each of the occasions, the learned Special Government Pleader had sought time and assured that she would get instructions by the next hearing date. I could see that the case was listed for hearing on 25.10.2017, 20.11.2018, 02.01.2019, 06.10.2020, 03.11.2020 and 26.11.2020. This case has thus been listed on several occasions and on every occasion, the learned Special Government Pleader only sought further time. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of writ of mandamus. I am satisfied with the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition.

¶23

Therefore, I direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's petition mentioned registration. Whatever remedies that may flow as a consequence will be available to the writ petitioner. The respondents are directed to issue formal proceedings restoring the petitioner's registration within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

This writ petition stands allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2013

¶32

PMU

¶33

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.

¶34

To:

¶35

The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Nagercoil.

¶36

The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Nagercoil.

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.B.RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-11801[F] dated 17/03/2021 )

¶38

W.P.(MD)Nos.17404 of 2013 16.03.2021 mj(CO)

¶39

TR(09.04.2021) 3P 4C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

S.C.Thangam, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.C.Thangam, v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Senthil Kumar.P Vs Union of India, Rep.by

Raguraja.R Vs Union of India

Sakthivel.B Vs the Regional Transport Officer

T.Rajapandi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Annamma Kurian Vs The District Committee Under the

Sylaja Kumari Vs the Director