Disposed

Tvl.Aravind Mani Ceramics v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Madras HC13 Feb 2023WP/4115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a notice and seeking direction to entertain an appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act due to incorrect payment of fees, the Court directed the second respondent to hear the appeal on merits after natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to entertain the appeal dated 28.03.2022, pass order on merits, and grant a personal hearing.

Tvl.Aravind Mani Ceramics Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4115 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.4115 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.4171 of 2023

¶8

Tvl.Aravind Mani Ceramics, Rep. by its Proprietor, D.Manibal. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Krishnagiri Assessment Circle, Krishnagiri.

¶10

2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Office of the Coimbatore - Salem Camp, Salem.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the files of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.318/2022/A1 dated 06.09.2022 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeal dated 28.03.2022 filed under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and pass order on merits and in accordance with law after grant of opportunity.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan

¶14

For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasantha Mala Government Advocate

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.4115 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 06.09.2022 issued by the second respondent and also seeks for a consequential direction to the second respondent to entertain the Appeal dated 28.03.2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Hereinafter referred to as TNVAT Act, 2006) . The petitioner has paid the necessary fees for filing the Appeal and they have also paid the Statutory pre-deposit amount. However, since the pre-deposit amount and the filing fees were paid before a wrong authority, the petitioner's Appeal has not been entertained. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶20

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent on instructions would submit that the petitioner has paid the filing fees as well as the pre-deposit amount though the same has been paid to a wrong authority. She would submit on instructions that the second respondent is willing to entertain the Appeal dated 28.03.2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 since the pre-deposit amount as well as the filing fees have already been paid by the petitioner.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.4115 of 2023

¶24

After recording the said statement, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to entertain the Appeal filed by the petitioner on 28.03.2022 under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law after adhering to the principles of natural justice including granting the petitioner the right of personal hearing as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

With the aforementioned directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

13.02.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No ab

¶27

¶28

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Krishnagiri Assessment Circle, Krishnagiri. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Office of the Coimbatore - Salem Camp, Salem.

¶29

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

¶30

3/4

¶31

W.P.No.4115 of 2023

¶32

ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,

¶33

¶34

W.P.No.4115 of 2023

¶35

13.02.2023 (1/2)

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

Tvl.Aravind Mani Ceramics v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Aravind Mani Ceramics v. The 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

Tvl.a.Palanisamy Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer(Circle)

Tvl.a.Palanisamy Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer(Circle)

Tvl. Scope International Private Limited Vs The Commercial Tax Officer (St)

Appnell Holdings Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Tvl.Aravind Mani Ceramics Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Medi Events,Coimbatore Vs Karmegam