A company assessed under the IFST Act challenged tax attachment and auction orders in two writ appeals after its writ petitions were dismissed for failing to comply with a conditional stay requiring 40% deposit under the Samadhan Scheme. The Bench dismissed both appeals as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.5337 and 5338 of 2016
W.A.(MD).No.883 of 2016
Pearl Chlorates Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Chairman and Director, N.Rajamanickam.
.. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Tuticorin - 8.
Page 1 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
4.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tuticorin.
.. Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge dated 24.03.2016 and made in W.P.(MD).No.5124 of 2012.
W.A.(MD).No.884 of 2016
Pearl Chlorates Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Chairman and Director, N.Rajamanickam.
.. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Industries, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
Page 2 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
4.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tuticorin.
.. Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge dated 24.03.2016 and made in W.P.(MD).No.7923 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vadivel for Mr.Mujibur Rahman
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader (In both Writ Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
The present Writ Appeals are filed by the private party aggrieved by
the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).
Nos.5124 of 2012 and 7923 of 2013 dated 24.03.2016.
Page 3 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
the appellant was assessed to tax under the IFST Act and to pay a sum of Rs.31,54,238/-. Having failed to pay the said tax, attachment order was passed. The same was challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.5124 of 2012 and an application was filed seeking stay of the recovery proceedings. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted that he will opt for Samadhan Scheme and ready to deposit 40% of the arrears. This Court, taking note of the said submission, granted interim stay of recovery proceedings on condition to pay 40% of the tax assessed by the appellant/writ petitioner, which is around Rs.12,61,695/- within the period prescribed, failing which, the interim stay granted shall automatically be vacated. Though the appellant/writ petitioner availed the protection of stay, he had not complied with the said condition. He has paid only Rs.4,30,000/- instead of Rs.12,61,695/-. Therefore, the authority has passed the subsequent attachment order, which is the subject matter of another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7923 of 2013.
Page 4 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
Petition was taken up for admission. But, when the matter was taken up for final disposal after four years on 24.03.2016, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the conditional order was not complied by the appellant/writ petitioner. Hence, the Department has proceeded with auction and third party interest has come into play. Recording the same, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petitions by stating that the appellant/writ petitioner has not obeyed the conditional order passed by the Court and having not opted for the Samadhan Scheme by paying the 40% of the tax assessed, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Appeals are filed in the year 2016 and the matter is taken up for final disposal today, i.e., 11.01.2024. Till date, the appellant has not shown any interest to avail the Samadhan Scheme by complying with the order or has not established his bonafide to settle the dispute under the Samadhan Scheme. This Court cannot be a tool to delay the tax recovery process or
Page 5 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
protect the interest of the person, who is not interested in complying with the conditional order passed by this Court, but only to save his property by hook or crook.
(G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 11.01.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
Page 6 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
To
Page 7 of 8
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
Lm
W.A.(MD).Nos.883 and 884 of 2016
11.01.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Should the writ appeals challenging dismissal of petitions against tax attachment orders be allowed despite non-compliance with the conditional stay order?
Can Article 226 remedies be sought by a petitioner who failed to comply with a conditional interim stay order?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pearl Chlorates Pvt Ltd (represented by Chairman and Director, N.Rajamanickam)
The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Industries
General Manager, District Industries Centre, Tuticorin
Joint Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli
Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tuticorin
Commercial Tax Officer - I, Kovilpatti
G.Jayachandran
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
