Allowed

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

Madras HC2 Jun 2022WP/13757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted Certiorari to set aside an order rejecting a rectification application under the TNVAT Act. The court held that the one-month limitation period claimed by the respondent was erroneous; Section 84 prescribes a six-year limit. The petition was disposed of with a direction to examine the application within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Respondent directed to examine rectification application and pass orders within six weeks.

Tvl.Sri Maharaja Industries 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.13757 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.13057 of 2022

¶6

Tvl. Sri Maharaja Industries Represented by its Proprietor K.Paramasivam 125, Bhavani Road Erode – 638 004

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

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

¶10

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: 33403062695 dated 25.04.2022 and quash the same as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and authority of law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Additional Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent in TIN: 33403062695 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 orders dated 30.06.2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 201314, served on the petitioner on 07.07.2021.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

dhk/pam

¶24

To:

¶25

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

¶26

+1cc to Special Government Pleader SR. No. 32249

¶27

W.P. No.13757 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.13057 of 2022

¶28

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

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Sri Maharaja Industries 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

Sri Maharaja Refineries Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)