Allowed

Saravanagiri Spinning v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jan 2022WP/6934/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a spinning mills company seeking restraint from collecting tax on maximum electricity demand charges. Relying on a previous First Bench order consistent with pending Supreme Court interim stays, the court allowed the prayer and closed connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the writ petition on the same lines as the order in W.A.No.547 of 2004 dated 02.06.2015, with no costs awarded.

Saravanagiri Spinning Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2022 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.No.6934 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos7523 & 7524 of 2017 Saravanagiri Spinning Mills Ltd., HTSC No 371 No.4/2, Krpad Road, Pallipalayam, Erode - 638006 Rep by its Director Lalit Kumar ...Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam. ... Respondents

¶2

Prayer Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from demanding and collecting the tax on maximum demand charges from the petitioner on H.T.Sc.No.371, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi on 31.08.2012 in SLP (C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012 etc Batch in M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys & Etc vs. Union of India and others etc.

¶3

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For R1 : Mr.M.Shahjahan Special Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.Abul Kalam Standing Counsel

¶4

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

¶5

ORDER

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear respondents 2 and 3 from demanding and collecting the tax on maximum demand charges from the petitioner in HT SC. No.371, as per the orders on the Honourable Supreme court of India, New Delhi on 31.08.2012 in SLP (c) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012 etc., batch in M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys and Etc. Vs. Union of India and others Etc.

¶7

This Court, by order dated 28.05.2021 in a batch of similar Writ Petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.9010 of 2020 etc., has considered the claim of the petitioners and granted the relief as sought for by the petitioners therein, allowed the prayer of the petitioners. Further, the First Bench of this Court had also considered the similar relief in W.A.No.547 of 2004, etc., and passed the order dated 02.06.2015, which reads as follows:

¶8

"“In view of the issue raised in the present writ appeal/writ petition being settled against the appellant/petitioner in terms of the Division Bench judgment in W.P.Nos.159 of 2008, etc. (batch), decided on 15.06.2012 and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having entertained the Special Leave Appeals against the said judgment bearing Special Leave Appeal (Civil) Nos.24685 to 24719 of 2012 dated 31.08.2012, with an interim direction restraining the respondents therein from taking any coercive steps for disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner therein, subject to that petitioner paying all the charges/dues except tax calculated on the basis of maximum demand, it is

¶9

agreed that the present writ appeal and writ petition be disposed of in terms aforesaid, with the agreement that the ultimate fate of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also govern the present appellant and writ petitioner and the same interim order would continue to enure for the benefit of the writ appellant and writ petitioner during the pendency of the Special Leave Appeals."

¶10

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

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Special Leave Appeals referred to in the above mentioned judgment of the First Bench, are still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the interim order already granted therein, is continued till date. Therefore, he would submit that the present writ petition also may be disposed of on the same lines of the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench in W.A.No.547 of 2004.

¶12

In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the above order passed by the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.547 of 2004 dated 02.06.2015, referred to above, will hold good in respect of the present Writ Petition also. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of on the same lines. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

rst

¶18

To: