Disposed

M/S. Superfil Products Ltd., v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC14 Nov 2024WP/31709/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three concurrent writ petitions challenging tax and compounding fee levies were heard and disposed of as infructuous because the assessing authorities had completed the assessments, thereby providing relief to the petitioners without the need for the writ court to intervene.

What did the court decide?

All three writ petitions disposed of as infructuous; no order as to costs.

M/S. Superfil Products Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.31709 to 31711 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.31709, 31710 and 31711 of 2012

¶7

M/s.Superfil Products Ltd., Jaganatha Puram Village Road, Irulipattu Village, Azhunjivakkam Post, Ponneri, Chennai – 600 067.

¶8

... Petitioner in all WPs

¶9

¶10

1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kottakuppam Check Post, Keelputhupattu.

¶11

2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents in all WPs

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.31709 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under

¶13

Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the case from the file of the first respondent herein, quash the impugned order of detention in GD

¶14

Page Nos.1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.Nos.31709 to 31711 of 2012

¶17

Notice No.13/2012-13 dated 29.04.2012 passed by the first respondent.

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No.31710 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the case from the file of the first respondent herein, quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 01.05.2012 in Form No.46, direct the first respondent to refund the tax and compounding fee paid by the petitioner under protest.

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No.31711 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under

¶20

Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the imposition of tax and compounding fee ultravires the provisions of Rule 15(1), Section 70(1)(a)(b)(c) of the State Act, 2006 as unconstitutional and ultravires the Constitution of India abridging Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, Chapter XIII of the Constitution of India and strike down the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned in relating to transport of goods admittedly in the course of interstate trade and commerce.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.Lakshmi Sriram in all WPs For Respondents : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Tax) in all WPs

¶22

Page Nos.2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.Nos.31709 to 31711 of 2012

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J .,]

¶27

Ms.Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner is before us on VC (video conferencing) platform. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Revenue counsel is before us in physical Court. To be noted, this is a hybrid hearing, which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that all the three captioned 'Writ Petitions' (hereinafter 'WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity) have become infructuous. Learned counsel submits that one WP seeks declaration regarding compounding fee saying the same is ultravires and two WPs challenge the levy of the compounding fee. Thereafter, the assessments have been completed and it is learned counsel's say that the assessments have given relief to the writ petitioner but we express no opinion on this submission.

¶29

Page Nos.3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.Nos.31709 to 31711 of 2012

¶32

Be that as it may, as it is the emphatic say of the learned

¶33

counsel on record for the writ petitioner that all three WPs have become infructuous in the light of assessments which have since been completed, all three captioned WPs are disposed of as closed having become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 14.11.2024

¶35

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶36

¶37

1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kottakuppam Check Post, Keelputhupattu.

¶38

2.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶39

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶40

Page Nos.4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.Nos.31709 to 31711 of 2012

¶43

mmi

¶44

W.P.Nos.31709 to 31711 of 2012

¶45

14.11.2024

¶46

Page Nos.5/5

¶47

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

M/S. Superfil Products Ltd., v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Superfil Products Ltd., v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Rukmani Vs the District Collector

Mohammed Ismail Vs the District Collector

P.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

M/S.Globe Industrial Spares Vs the Secretary

N.Mohamed Yusuf Vs the District Collector

K.Rajendren Vs the District Collector