Allowed

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

Madras HC9 Mar 2021WP(MD)/4915/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged assessment orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Tax Attached Sales Tax Officer without affording a personal hearing, violating natural justice principles, were allowed, quashing the orders and remanding the matter for afresh proceedings with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.11.2020 quashed; matter remitted to pass orders afresh after affording personal hearing and providing copies of seized documents within two weeks.

Tvl.Annamalaiyar Timbers Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.4915 & 4921 OF 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.03.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.4915 & 4921 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3995 & 3997 of 2021

¶7

Tvl. Annamalaiyar Timbers, Rep. by its Proprietrix:R.Bhuvaneswari, No.40/B-1, Sevalpatti South Street, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

¶8

... Petitioner in both petitions

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Tax Officer(Inspection Cell), Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli Division. ... Respondent in both petitions

¶11

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.4915 of 2021: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent herein in No.33BMGPB8817B1ZI/2019-20(Case ID No.TVL-027-20200213) dated 07.11.2020 quash the same as illegal, invalid and violative of the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass orders afresh after furnishing the copies of the entire records that are all relied on for the assessment and after verifying the petitioner's books of accounts and thereafter giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file their objections and thereafter affording a personal hearing to the petitioner to put forth their case.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.4921 of 2021: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent herein in No.33BMGPB8817B1ZI/2018-19(Case ID No.TVL-027-20200213) dated 07.11.2020 quash the same as illegal, invalid and violative of the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass orders afresh after furnishing the copies of the entire records that are all relied on for the assessment and after verifying the petitioner's books of accounts and thereafter giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file their objections and thereafter affording a personal hearing to the petitioner to put forth their case.

¶13

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

¶14

1/3

¶15

W.P.(MD)Nos.4915 & 4921 OF 2021

¶16

(in both W.Ps.) For Petitioner

¶17

: Mr.R.Murali, for Mr.M.Natarajan.

¶18

: Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate. * * *

¶19

For Respondents

¶20

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶22

With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶23

The petitioner is an assessee registered with the respondent. The respondent passed the adverse orders against the petitioner on 07.11.2020. The assessment order passed in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 was set aside by me on 03.02.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.936 of 2021 and the matter was remitted to the file of the respondent. The cases on hand are absolutely identical.

¶24

Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed and the matter is remitted to the file of the respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner is given four more weeks to offer his objections. The respondent is directed to facilitate the service of photo copies of the documents seized from the petitioner herein. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the petitioner offers his additional objections and furnishes his documents in support of explanation, the respondent will independently consider the same. If the respondent is not satisfied, he will issue personal hearing notice and thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law. The petitioner's counsel on instructions gives an undertaking that the petitioner will definitely cooperate with the enquiry and not adopt any dragging on tactics.

¶25

These writ petitions stand allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)Nos.4915 & 4921 OF 2021

¶32

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.

¶33

To:

¶34

The State Tax Officer(Inspection Cell), Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli Division.

¶35

+2 CC to M/s.M.NATARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-10017 & 10018[F] dated 10/03/2021 )

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10148, 10149[F] dated 10/03/2021 )

¶37

W.P.(MD)Nos.4915 & 4921 of 2021 09.03.2021

¶38

na(CO)

¶39

TR(18.05.2021) 3P 5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Salmag Enerprises Vs the Addl Commissioner of Customs(Adj)

M/S.Salmag Enterprises Vs the Additional Commissioner of Customs

Subaya Constructions Company Ltd. Vs Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board

M.S.Marketing Vs The State Tax Officer

Anwar Raja Vs The Inspector of Police

Nallathambi.S Vs the State Tax Officer (St)