Allowed

Tvl.Balamurugn Motors v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Madras HC10 Mar 2021WP(MD)/4732/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an order passed by the second respondent without considering the petitioner's reply and without affording a personal hearing. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent to pass orders afresh within four weeks.

Tvl.Balamurugn Motors Vs the Commissioner of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.3843 of 2021

¶2

Tvl.Balamurugan Motors, Rep.by its Proprietor, M.Ramamoorthy

¶3

... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o.the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

Taxes,

Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

¶10

Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle,

¶11

Commercial Taxes Complex,

¶12

Dr.Thangaraj Salai,

¶13

Madurai – 625 020. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN : 33116233057/2016-17 dated 16.12.2020 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban for Mr.R.Veeramanikandan For Respondents : Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

¶18

2.The primary ground on which the petitioner challenges the impugned order is that even though the petitioner had given their reply, the same was not taken note of. In support of the claim that the reply was personally handed over in the office of the second respondent, acknowledgement was issued by the despatch clerk has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been enclosed. Initially, the stand of the respondent was that the

¶19

1/2

¶20

acknowledgement does not appear to be genuine. The matter was therefore passed over to verify the same. In the evening, it is stated that the proof filed by the petitioner is very much genuine.

¶21

3.Since the second respondent has passed the order without taking note of the reply given by the petitioner and since personal hearing was not given, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed and the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

skm

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶29

O/o.the Principal and Special

¶30

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶31

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶32

2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

¶33

Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle,

¶34

Commercial Taxes Complex, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai – 625 020.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10560[F] dated 11/03/2021 )

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.B.ROOBAN, Advocate ( SR-10643[F] dated 12/03/2021 )

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.3843 of 2021 10.03.2021

¶38

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

¶39

2/2

Tvl.Balamurugn Motors v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Balamurugn Motors v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

M.S.Marketing Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl.Annamalaiyar Timbers Vs the State Tax Officer(Inspection Cell)

Anwar Raja Vs The Inspector of Police

Tvl.Shri Balaji Steels and Hardwares Vs The State Sales Tax Officer

N.Suyambu Rajan Vs The District Collector

M/S.S.G.Marketing Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)