Allowed

Tvl.B.S.Harish Babu v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

Madras HC5 Dec 2024WP/2983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging attachment proceedings against the petitioner's property to recover tax dues of the second respondent. The court held that payment made in 1999 did not cover the specific default period impugned.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.25,000 to the 1st respondent within 30 days; upon payment, impugned recovery proceedings to be vacated.

Tvl.B.S.Harish Babu Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2983 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.No.2983 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.3156 of 2022

¶9

Tvl.B.S.Harish Babu 66/10-3, Balaji Nagar, 2^nd Cross, R.S.Road, Hosur Krishnagiri – 635 109

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Hosur (South), Hosur – 635 109.

¶13

2.Tvl.K.Sekar Proprietor, Sakthi Enterprises, Bose Bazzaar, Hosur

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, inter alia, calling for the records leading to the issuance of Na.Ka.2160/2006/A3 dated 04.04.2017 issued by the

¶16

1^st respondent and the consequent attachment and tender notices vide Na.Ka.474/2020/A3 dated 01.12.2021 and quash the same and direct the First Respondent herein to release the attachment made upon petitioner scheduled

¶17

property to recover the tax dues of the Second Respondent herein.

¶18

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

¶19

1/5

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Vaidya Reddy for Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondents : For R1 Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶21

W.P.No.2983 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Mr.Vaidya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate for the 1^st respondent.

¶25

In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 04.04.2017 , bearing reference Na.Ka.2160/2006/A3 and consequential attachments/tender notices dated 01.12.2021 bearing reference Na.Ka.474/2020/A3.

¶26

The petitioner appears to have executed a bond in favour of the Commercial Tax Department in 1998 i.e., on 09.05.1998 , when the 2^nd respondent had sought to obtain registration as a dealer under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 1959 . As per the bond in form XIX-B signed under sub- Rule 15 (3) of Rule 24 of Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 1959, the petitioner himself is bound to secure the interest of the Commercial Tax Department to the extent of Rs.25,000/-.

¶27

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

¶28

2/5

¶29

W.P.No.2983 of 2022

¶30

It appears that the second respondent has committed default and hence

¶31

therefore, is an assessee in default and therefore, the 1^st respondent, the Commercial Tax Department has sought to enforce and recover the same from the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.25,000/- as the petitioner has paid the aforesaid sum on 18.11.1999 . A reference is made to the receipt issued by the Sales Tax Collection Inspector, Hosur.

¶32

I have perused the documents filed in support of the present writ

¶33

petition including the aforesaid receipt refers to tax for the Month of April, 1999.

¶34

It is unlikely that the aforesaid sum of Rs.25,000/- would have been paid with respect of alleged due of the 2^nd respondent for the period during which the 2^nd respondent was not in arrears of tax. The demand, if any, would have arisen only on account of the assessment orders passed against the 2^nd respondent on account of the default committed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

W.P.No.2983 of 2022

¶38

The payment receipts dated 18.11.1999 is confined to the tax due of the 2^nd respondent for the month of April 1999 and therefore the said payment cannot be construed as discharge of the Sales Tax Liability of the 2^nd respondent for the period during which the 2^nd respondent was in arrears. Therefore, there is no merits in the writ petition. Therefore, the Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the 1^st respondent within a period of thirty (30) days subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount, the impugned recovery proceedings shall stand vacated.

¶39

With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

05.12.2024

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No

¶42

nst

¶43

To: The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Hosur (South), Hosur – 635 109.

¶44

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

4/5

W.P.No.2983 of 2022

C.SARAVANAN, J.

nst

W.P.No.2983 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.3156 of 2022

¶50

05.12.2024

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

Tvl.B.S.Harish Babu v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.B.S.Harish Babu v. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Fac)

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

E2e Supply Chain Solutions Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax

Chellammal college for women Vs The Commissioner

C.Kandasami Naidu College for Women, cuddalore Vs The Commissioner

Siva Vs State Tax Officer

Dr.(Sqn Lr) S.B.Rajesh Ram Vs Dr. Shanmuga Kani

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner (St) -Ii