Allowed

Sri Maharaja Refineries v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC2 Jun 2022WP/13752/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petition, setting aside an order rejecting a rectification application for VAT due to an incorrect application of a one-month limitation period. The court held that Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 prescribes a six-year limit and directed the respondent to re-examine.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Direction to respondent to examine rectification application and pass orders within six weeks.

Sri Maharaja Refineries Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶5

W.P.No.13752 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.13053 of 2022

¶6

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Represented by its Partner, P.Sathiyamoorthy, 125, Bhavani Road, Erode – 638 004. .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Periya Agraham Circle, Erode. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the respondent in TIN: 33053060123 dated 25.04.2022 and quash the same as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and authority of law.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent in TIN: 33053060123 dated 25.04.2022 for rejecting the application for rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "TNVAT Act, 2006") of the order dated 28.06.2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, served on the petitioner on 07.07.2021.

¶12

Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶13

The rectification was rejected on the premise that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ limitation period expired on 07.08.2021 i.e., one month from the date of service of order of assessment.

¶14

The above reason is clearly erroneous and contrary to Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which prescribes a time limit of six years from the date of receipt of the order and not one month.

¶15

In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and direction is issued to the respondent to examine the application for rectification and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

dhk/pam

¶22

To:

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Periya Agraham Circle, Erode.

¶24

+1cc to Special Government Pleader SR. No. 32250

¶25

W.P.No.13752 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.13053 of 2022

¶26

JPL (CO) PR (22/06/2022)

¶27

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

Sri Maharaja Refineries v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maharaja Refineries v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

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

M/s.Makey Electricals Vs The Commercial Tax officer

Kunjunamma George Vs The Madras Medical Mission and another

Selvalakshmanan, Vs Additional Chief Secretary /

M/s.Power Links Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s. K.T.v.Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chief Engineer Non Conventional

Tvl.Sri Maharaja Industries Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)