Disposed

M/S.U.Y.Look, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jan 2024WA(MD)/1259/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dealer challenged VAT assessment orders in writ appeals after a Single Judge dismissed its writ petitions for bypassing statutory appeal and ignoring show-cause notice. The Division Bench refused to entertain the appeals but preserved the right to appeal subject to compliance with statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file statutory appeal within three weeks subject to compliance with mandatory statutory conditions; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

M/S.U.Y.Look, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.A.(MD).Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.8586, 8587 and 8588 of 2016

¶7

M/s.U Y Look, Rep. by its Proprietor – N.Senthilkumar

¶8

.. Appellant/Petitioner in both W.As

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Srirangam Assessment Circle, Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006, Trichy District. .. Respondent/Respondent in both W.As

¶11

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.10412, 10411 of 2016, dated 14.06.2016 respectively.

¶12

(In both W.Ps) For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajaselar For Respondent : Mr.Prakash, Special Government Pleader

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

W.A(MD)Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2016

¶16

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶17

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶18

The appellant herein on receipt of assessment order pointing out the mismatch between Annexure – I and Annexure- II, namely, the list of purchase and list of sale, without availing the statutory appeal remedy available under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and without responding to the notice of assessment, had approached the High Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶19

The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out the error in approaching the High Court and had dismissed the writ petitions.

¶20

Being aggrieved, these two appeals, one for the assessment year 2013-2014, another for the assessment year 2014-2015, have been preferred.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in J.K.M Graphics Solutions Private Page 2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

W.A(MD)Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2016

¶24

Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer reported in 2017 SCC Online Mad 669 , followed by the order passed in a review petition, dated 12.02.2021 and the circular of the Government, dated 24.02.2021, which has formulated a methodology for considering the mismatch in the column of input tax credit, persuaded this Court to entertain the appeals.

¶25

However, on considering the facts of the case, this Court is not

¶26

inclined to entertain the appeals primarily on the ground that the appellant has approached this Court without availing the appeal remedy available under the Statute and also had knocked the doors of this Court without responding to the show-cause notice issued by the Department before the assessment order.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant after failing in his attempt to persuade this Court to entertain these appeals, made an alternate plea that his right to avail the appeal remedy may be preserved.

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.A(MD)Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2016

¶31

7.This Court is of the view that the statutory appeal remedy available

¶32

to the appellant shall not be deprived provided he complies the mandatory

¶33

conditions provided under the Statute to avail the statutory appeal remedy.

¶34

With these observations, these writ appeals are disposed of. The appellant shall prefer appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the right of appeal will be forfeited. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶35

(G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 22.01.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PM

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

W.A(MD)Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2016

¶39

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶40

¶41

W.A(MD)Nos.1259 ad 1260 of 2016

¶42

22.01.2024

¶43

Page 5 of 5

¶44

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

M/S.U.Y.Look, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.U.Y.Look, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.T.Pattukumar Vs R.Anitha Jayanthi

Revathi D/O.Manoharan, Vs Amnurajan

Thenammai Achi(Died) 1.DEIVANAI Vs Rama.Kamala

S.Rajendran Vs v.Palaniappan

M.Suresh, Vs Sumathi, D/O.Neela &

Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co.Ltd, Vs Nallal