Allowed

S Saravanan v. the State Tax Officer

Madras HC17 Apr 2024WP/3869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery proceedings were launched against a director of a private company under Section 37 of the TNVAT Act. Since the company had not been wound up, a precondition for such proceedings, the court held the action unsustainable and set aside the Revenue Recovery Act notice.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act set aside; writ petition allowed without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

S Saravanan Vs the State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3869 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.3869 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.4184 & 4186 of 2024

¶7

S.Saravanan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Tax Officer, Tiruchengode (Town).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is 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 Roc.No.1477/2019/A3 in Form 4 dated 02.09.2022 along with his consequential Form 5, Form 7 & Form 7A all dated 09.01.2023 as reiterated on 03.03.2023 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.Parthasarathy

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik,

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.No.3869 of 2024

¶17

Additional Government Pleader (T)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

In this writ petition, proceedings initiated against one of the directors of Stanely Hitech Construction Company Private Limited are challenged. Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the TNVAT Act) enables the tax authorities to proceed against a director of a private company/dealer if the company is wound up if such person was a director at the time of winding up. The admitted position is that Stanely Hitech Construction Company Private Limited has not been wound up. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the director of the company under Section 37 of the TNVAT Act cannot be sustained.

¶20

Therefore, W.P.No.3869 of 2024 is allowed by setting aside the notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

17.04.2024 (3/3)

¶22

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶23

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

2/3

W.P.No.3869 of 2024

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶28

¶29

¶30

The State Tax Officer, Tiruchengode Town.

¶31

W.P.No.3869 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.4184 & 4186 of 2024

¶32

17.04.2024 (3/3)

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

S Saravanan v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Saravanan v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Arun Kumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

Resulticks Digitals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner

M/S.Prosign Communications, Vs the State Tax Officer

Tvl Stanely Hitech Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

Tvl Stanely Hitech Construction Company (P) Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, As provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards(India) Vs nil