Allowed

Fritzmeier Mothreson cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd, v. State Tax officer

Madras HC1 Jun 2023WP/14894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a sales tax rectification order which failed to consider the petitioner's objections. The court directed the respondent to hear the petitioner and pass orders anew on the proposal for rectification.

What did the court decide?

The rectification order dated 15.07.2016 was set aside; the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh hearing after the petitioner appears.

Fritzmeier Mothreson cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Vs State… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.14894 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 01.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.14894 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.14468 and 14470 of 2023

¶7

Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering Pvt Ltd No-112, Singadivakkam Village Attuputhur Post - 631 561 Kancheepuram District Rep by its Authorized Signatory T.Y. Sampathkumar Assistant Vice President - Finance

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

State Tax Officer Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle Varadharajapuram - 600 123

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶13

praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the Impugned Order bearing reference number TIN 33761664030/2014-15 dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Respondent and quash the same and remand the

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.14894 of 2023

¶17

matter back to the file of the Respondent to consider the matter afresh after

¶18

providing an opportunity for being heard, in accordance with law.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Veeraraghavan

¶20

For Respondent : Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the recovery notice calling upon it to remit

¶23

the arrears of sales tax for the period 2014-15. The demand was raised under

¶24

the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act').

¶25

2.It is the petitioner's case that the arrears arise out of a rectification order dated 15.07.2016 which was supplied only along with the recovery notice. That apart, the rectification order dated 15.07.2016 refers to a notice dated 28.04.2016 issued to the petitioner and proceeds on the basis that the petitioner was non-responsive.

¶26

3.However, the petitioner has, vide reply dated 10.05.2016, posted on 11.05.2016, set out its objections which have clearly escaped the attention of the assessing authority.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

¶29

W.P.No.14894 of 2023

¶30

4.Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, who appears for the Commercial Taxes Department states, on instructions, that objections dated 10.05.2016 have not been received by the respondent.

¶31

5.Be that as it may, and as rightly pointed out by Mr.V.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is proof of the petitioner having dispatched objections dated 10.05.2016 and hence in the interests of justice, rectification order dated 15.07.2016 which has not taken into account its explanation must be set aside and I do so.

¶32

6.Let the petitioner appear before the respondent on 16.06.2023 at 10.30 a.m. accompanied by a copy of objection dated 10.05.2016 and supporting materials, if any. After hearing the petitioner, the respondent shall pass orders anew on the proposal for rectification.

¶33

7.Needless to say any recovery shall be subject to the proceedings directed to be carried out now. If the petitioner does not appear on the date of hearing as fixed aforesaid, the respondent is at liberty to continue with the proceedings for recovery. No notice need be issued for hearing directed to be conducted on 16.06.2023 as both learned counsel had taken note of the date pronounced in Court.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

¶36

W.P.No.14894 of 2023

¶37

8.This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

01.06.2023

¶39

vs Index : Yes / No Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶40

¶41

State Tax Officer Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle Varadharajapuram - 600 123

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

¶44

W.P.No.14894 of 2023

¶45

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J. vs

¶46

W.P.No.14894 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.14468 & 14470 of 2023

¶47

01.06.2023

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Fritzmeier Mothreson cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd, v. State Tax officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fritzmeier Mothreson cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd, v. State Tax officer

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

K.Athiyaman Vs The Commissioner

Tapp Semiconductor India P Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Roja vanarasi Vs The Director of Elementary education

M/s.Badru Jehan waqf alal aulad Trust, Vs The Managing Director

T.Sivakumar Vs The Government of India

The South Indian Sugar Vs The State of Tamilnadu,Rep by