Dismissed

Tvl.Sabanayagam and company v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC24 Nov 2023WP/15076/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the service of an inspection notice and assessment order under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. Accepting the respondent's proof of service, the court held the petitioner could not refute it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal within 4 weeks.

Tvl.Sabanayagam and company Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.15076 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.15076 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P. 15971 of 2021

¶9

Tvl.Sabanayagam & Co. Rep. by its partner No.11, Vallalar Nagar, Chidambaram - 608 001.

¶10

..Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State Tax Officer, Chidambaram - II.

¶13

..Respondent

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent in notice dated 10.02.2021 in R.C.A3/590/2018 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy

¶16

For Respondent : Ms.Amritha Dinakaran Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The writ petition is filed on the limited ground that the notice as well as

¶19

the impugned order of assessment for the assessment year 2014-15 were not

¶20

served in the manner contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶21

W.P. No.15076 of 2021

¶22

2006. However, the learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the

¶23

notice as well as the order of assessment have been duly served and had also produced the acknowledgment in support thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner perused the notice / order and the acknowledgment card as proof of service and was unable to refute the same.

¶24

2. In view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed, the same shall be entertained by the Respondent without reference to limitation subject to complying with other conditions including pre-deposit, which was not seriously objected to by the respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

24.11.2023

¶26

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka/ spp

¶27

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

¶28

2/4

¶29

W.P. No.15076 of 2021

¶30

To:

¶31

The State Tax Officer, Chidambaram - II.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P. No.15076 of 2021

¶35

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶36

mka

¶37

W.P. No.15076 of 2021 and W.M.P. 15971 of 2021

¶38

24.11.2023

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Tvl.Sabanayagam and company v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Sabanayagam and company v. The 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

M/s.Tvl Geoscope Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Taxes Depatment Puducherry

Tvl.Pandian Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Ase Structure Design Private Limited Vs The Deputy commissioner of Income Tax

Cpf (India) Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant

Bashyaam Constrructions P Ltd. Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy/

M/s.Fairyland Foundations Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)