Allowed

Tvl.R.P.Periyasamy and Company v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC26 Apr 2023WP/19837/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed multiple writ petitions quashing assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The Court held that the assessing authority violated principles of natural justice by disregarding a reply submitted by the petitioner without recording it, and remanded the matter for a de novo hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment orders set aside; petitioners to appear for de novo hearing within eight weeks from 08.05.2023.

Tvl.R.P.Periyasamy and Company Vs Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.19837of 2020 etc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

The HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.Nos.19837, 19840, 19844 & 19847 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos. 24504, 24509, 24513 & 24511 of 2020

¶7

Tvl.R.P.Periyasamy & Co., Rep. By its Partner, No.143/3, Sri Ganapathy Garden, Palayapalayam, Erode, Tamil Nadu 638 011

¶8

.. Petitioner in all WPs

¶9

¶10

Assistant Commissioner (ST) Thindal Assessment Circle, Erode. .. Respondent in all WPs

¶11

Prayer in W.P.No.19837 of 2020: 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 order dated 12.11.2020 in TIN : 3306290280/2012-13 and quash the same.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.19840 of 2020: 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 order dated 12.11.2020 in TIN : 3306290280/2013-14 and quash the same.

¶13

Prayer in W.P.No.19844 of 2020: 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 order dated 12.11.2020 in TIN : 3306290280/2014-15 and quash the same.

¶14

Prayer in W.P.No.19844 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

W.P.Nos.19837of 2020 etc

¶18

calling for the records of the respondent in order dated 12.11.2020 in TIN : 3306290280/2015-16 and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy (in all writ petitions) For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (in all writ petitions)

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

The challenge in these writ petitions is to an order of assessment dated 12.11.2020 passed under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, 'Act').

¶22

The short point is as to whether there is violation of principles of natural justice in these cases.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared in response to personal hearing notice dated 14.10.2020. However, it is its case that a reply was given on 10.02.2020 that was not taken note of by the assessing authority. At the least, he would say the assessing authority ought to have taken note of the submissions made under reply dated 10.02.2020.

¶24

In the course of the submissions made, learned Government Advocate would state that he has had occasion to pursue the records and does not find letter dated 10.02.2020 to be part of the same. In such circumstances, the extract of the

¶25

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

¶26

2/5

¶27

W.P.Nos.19837of 2020 etc

¶28

delivery book placed at page 81 of the compilation accompanying

¶29

the writ affidavit assumes importance. That extract reads thus:-

¶30

Month & Date	Name and address	Letters etc	Bearer	Signature with time
10.01.202 0	The AC (ST) Thindal Assessment Circle, Erode	From: R.P.Periyasamy TIN : 33062901280, Erode In response to your office notice for the FY 2013- 14, your office notice no TIN: 33062901280 / 2013-14, notice date : 14.11.2019. and enclose for the following details i) copy of bank statement ii) copy of service tax return (ST-3)	Received 2012 – 2013 to 2015 – 2016 Sd/- 18.02.2020 AC (ST) Thindal Asst	Circle

¶31

The above extract is signed by the Assistant

¶32

Commissioner (ST). Upon consideration of the signatures at pages 68, 81 & 85 and 86 of the compilation dated 15.12.2020, there is close similarity, though perhaps not complete identity in the signatures. That apart, the counter also does not deny the receipt of letter dated 10.02.2020 and it is only in the course of the oral submissions that such submission is advanced.

¶33

In light of the aforesaid position, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders, have been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice, and they are set aside.

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.Nos.19837of 2020 etc

¶37

Seeing as the periods of assessment are 2012 – 2013

¶38

to 2015 – 2016, the petitioners will appear before the authority on Monday i.e., 08.05.2023 at 10.30 a.m., without anticipating any further notice in this regard, for de novo hearing. Let the petitioner be heard, evidences in support of the submissions, if any, be considered, and orders passed, in accordance with law within eight weeks from 08.05.2023.

¶39

Writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Connected

¶40

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶41

26.04.2023

¶42

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶43

To:

¶44

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Thindal Assessment Circle, Erode

¶45

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

¶46

4/5

¶47

W.P.Nos.19837of 2020 etc

¶48

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶49

ssm

¶50

W.P.Nos.19837, 19840, 19844 & 19847 of 2020

¶51

26.04.2023

¶52

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

¶53

5/5

Tvl.R.P.Periyasamy and Company v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.R.P.Periyasamy and Company v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

The President Vs The District Collector

Kirubakaran Kupusamy Vs The Assistant commissioner (Circle)

M/s.Sri.Murugan Metal mart Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (fac)

Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs President Sandavellur Panchayat

Thiru Kumar Jayant,Ias., and 2 others Vs E.Govindaswamy 27 others

M/s.Satluj Credit and Holdings Private Ltd. Vs Income Tax officer