Writ petitions challenged revision notices issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 solely on the ground of the vires of Section 6. Since the vires challenge had been decided adverse to assessees in LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to file replies before the assessing authority.
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.
2024:MHC:3609
W.P.Nos.6637, 6638 & 6639 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.Nos. 6637, 6638 & 6639 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2013
M/s.Rishi & Associates Rep. by its Proprietor, 31/8, K.S.Plaza, 10th Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-12.
.. Petitioner in all WPs
vs
Prayer in WP.No.6637 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in TIN/33122183059/2009-10 and quash the revision notice dated 11.01.2013 issued therein.
Prayer in WP.No.6638 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in TIN/33122183059/2010-11 and quash the revision notice dated 11.01.2013 issued therein.
Prayer in WP.No.6639 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in
1/4
W.P.Nos.6637, 6638 & 6639 of 2013
TIN/33122183059/2011-12 and quash the revision notice dated 11.01.2013 issued therein.
(In all WPs) For Petitioner : Mr.C.Subramanian for Mr.B.Raveendran
For Respondents : Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
Mr.C.Subramanian, learned counsel, would fairly bring to our notice that the issue arising for decision in this matter being a challenge to Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 has been decided adverse to the assessee in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai and others [W.P.No.29096/2007 etc batch dated 31.03.2022]
2/4
W.P.Nos.6637, 6638 & 6639 of 2013
Liberty is given to the petitioner to file their reply within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon consideration of the same and after hearing the petitioner, the assessing authority will finalize the proposals contained in the notices dated 11.01.2013, in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from date of personal hearing.
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm
To
3/4
W.P.Nos.6637, 6638 & 6639 of 2013
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J.
ssm
W.P.Nos. 6637, 6638 & 6639 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2013
21.10.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision notices dated 11.01.2013 could be quashed on the ground that Section 6 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is unconstitutional.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai and othersRelied on¶1
[W.P.No.29096/2007 etc batch dated 31.03.2022]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.Rishi & Associates Rep. by its Proprietor
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, CT & RE Department
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC) Gandhipuram Circle, Coimbatore
Anita Sumanth
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
