Dismissed

Tvl. Makesh Kumar Mills Pvt.Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC21 Feb 2023WP/4923/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order levying interest and penalty under the GST regime. The court refused to quash the order, holding no violation of natural justice occurred, and directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file statutory appeal within one month; connected WMP closed. No costs.

Tvl. Makesh Kumar Mills Pvt.Ltd Vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.4923 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.4937 of 2023

¶7

Tvl. Makesh Kumar Mills Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Proprietor R.Balasubramaniam. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tiruppur Central - II Circle, Tiruppur. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the respondent in GSTIN:33AARPM5479J1ZM/2017-18 dated 01.09.2022 and quash the same as being without its jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan For Respondent : Mr.TNC. Kaushik Additional Government Pleader

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order dated

¶17

01.09.2022 in respect of the assessment year 2017-18, levying interest and penalty on the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:

¶19

a) The impugned order is contrary to the principle laid down in the Judgment rendered in W.P.No.4468 of 2020 in the case of M/s.Maansarovar Motors Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Poonamallee Division, Chennai Outer Commissionerate, C-48, TNHB Building, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 and Others;

¶20

b) The impugned order is contrary to the Judgment rendered in W.P.No.15340 of 2022 dated 21.06.2022 in the case of G.K.Shetty Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner, Chennai and Others.

¶21

As seen from the impugned order, there is no violation of

¶22

principles of natural justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶26

The Judgments relied upon by the petitioner referred to supra, can very well

¶27

be produced by the petitioner before the Statutory Appellate Authority.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the petitioner is willing to file the Statutory Appeal as against the impugned order, provided the petitioner is granted sufficient time to file the same.

¶29

This Court is of the considered view that one month time will

¶30

suffice for the petitioner to file the Statutory Appeal as against the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 passed in

¶31

GSTIN:33AARFM5479J1ZM/2017-18.

¶32

For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Statutory Appellate Authority if aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 for GSTIN:33AARFM5479J1ZM/2017-18 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶36

The Statutory Appellate Authority shall entertain the said Appeal if

¶37

the same is filed within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court without reference to limitation.

¶38

With the aforementioned directions, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶39

of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

21.02.2023

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶45

¶46

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tiruppur Central - II Circle, Tiruppur.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶50

ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,

¶51

¶52

W.P.No.4923 of 2023

¶53

21.02.2023 (1/2)

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

Tvl. Makesh Kumar Mills Pvt.Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Makesh Kumar Mills Pvt.Ltd 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Murugan Electrical Stores Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

S.Bharath and 7 others Vs Dr.Senthilkumar IAS and 2 others

Dr.a. Manimekalan Vs The Registrar

M/s.Eveready Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs Thiru.RajeshLakhoni IAS

G2 Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs a.Rajesh Lakhani, and 4 others

S.Kamakshi Vs Padmavathy