Allowed

M/S Susee Automotive Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC10 Jun 2024WP(MD)/11901/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed writ petitions seeking re-consideration of recovery orders. Court granted one opportunity to file statutory appeals under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, treating recovered amounts as sufficient pre-deposit, directing disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order granting one opportunity to file statutory appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT Act within 30 days, treating recovered amounts as sufficient pre-deposit.

M/S Susee Automotive Private Limited Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.10603 to 10605 & 10607 to 10609 of 2024

¶7

In W.P.(MD).No.11901 of 2024:

¶8

M/s.Susee Automotive Private Limited, Represented by its Director J.Rajiv Subramanian, No.89/102, Theni main road, P.P.Chavadi, Madurai – 625 016. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai – 625 020.

¶11

2.The Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, KVBL0001655, 133, GST Road, Thiru Nagar 1^st stop, Thirunagar, Madurai – 625 006.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, 14, Theni main road,

¶13

1/9

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶16

Arasaradi, Madurai 625 016.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in its impugned proceedings made in TIN No. 33665165027/2010-11 dated 07.02.2024, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to re-consider the petition filed by the petitioner dated 25.10.2023 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

¶19

For petitioner : Mr.Shanmugam Rajasekar For respondent-1 : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate

¶20

In W.P.(MD).No.11902 of 2024:

¶21

M/s.Susee Automotive Private Limited, Represented by its Director J.Rajiv Subramanian, No.89/102, Theni main road, P.P.Chavadi, Madurai – 625 016. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶22

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai – 625 020.

¶23

2.The Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, KVBL0001655, 133, GST Road, Thiru Nagar 1^st stop, Thirunagar,

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶27

Madurai – 625 006.

¶28

3.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, 14, Theni main road, Arasaradi, Madurai 625 016. ... Respondents

¶29

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in its impugned proceedings made in TIN No. 33665165027/2011-12 dated 07.02.2024, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to re-consider the petition filed by the petitioner dated 14.11.2023 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

¶30

For petitioner : Mr.Shanmugam Rajasekar For respondent -1 : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate

¶31

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

This is the second round of litigation before this Court. The dispute pertains to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

¶34

The petitioner premises was inspected by the Investigation Team and

¶35

3/9

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶38

proposals were made after obtaining sworn statement on 16.06.2017. The petitioner has given composite reply on 29.11.2017 for AY2010-11, AY2011-12, AY14-15 and AY16-17. These Writ Petitions are concerned with the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. After the petitioner had given composite reply on 29.11.2017 in response of defects pointed out by the investigation team, for these two assessment years, the petitioner was issued with pre-revision notice dated 08.05.2018. The petitioner failed to file a reply in time and has, thus, suffered the impugned orders dated 29.10.2018 and 16.11.2018 for AY 2010-11 and for AY 2011-12, respectively.

¶39

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).Nos. 21357 and 21359 of 2019. These two Writ Petitions were disposed of at the time of admission by giving a liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal within the period of two weeks, subject to depositing 25% of the disputed tax. However, the petitioner failed to pay the aforesaid 25% of the disputed tax amount, as directed by the Court vide order dated 16.03.2021. Under these circumstances, the petitioner’s bank account was attached on 22.01.2022

¶40

4/9

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶43

The petitioner made an attempt to revive the proceedings by filing a grievance petition before the respondents almost in the fashion of a rectification proceedings under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on 21.02.2022. Meanwhile, a sum of Rs.7,18,498/- and Rs.11,47,792/- were debited from the petitioner’s bank account for the respective assessment years on 23.02.2022 and 28.04.2022, respectively.

¶44

By a communication dated 10.05.2022, the first respondent declined to entertain the same stating that the petitioner had not complied with the orders of this Court dated 16.03.2021 and thus, amounts were recovered from the petitioner’s account.

¶45

The petitioner has woken up for the second time after the recovery orders were made on 23.02.2022 and 28.04.2022, respectively, by filing petitions under Section 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006 on 25.10.2023 within the limitation prescribed to rectify the respective assessment orders dated 29.10.2018 and 16.11.2018, which have now culminated in the impugned orders both dated

¶46

5/9

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶49

07.02.2024 with the following observation, which reads identically in both cases:

¶50

Reading of the impugned order and considering the aforesaid facts

¶51

6/9

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶54

and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that more than 25% of the amount of disputed tax has been recovered to be paid earlier, pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2021 in W.P.(MD).Nos.21357 and 21359 of 2019 and also considering the fact that this rectification applications ware filed in time, the Court is of the view to balance to interest on Commercial Tax Department and therefore, the petitioner can be given one opportunity to file statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order against the respective Assessment Order dated dated 29.10.2018 and 16.11.2018 for AY 2010-11 and for AY 2011-12, respectively. The amount that has been recovered from the petitioner’s account on those days mentioned above, shall be treated as sufficient for the purpose of pre-deposit and for disposal of the appeal.

¶55

The petitioner’s appeal shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In other words, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶56

7/9

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶59

These Writ Petitions are disposed of, with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶60

Index : Yes / No 10.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai – 625 020.

¶61

8/9

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶64

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶65

apd

¶66

W.P.(MD) Nos.11901 & 11902 of 2024

¶67

10.06.2024

¶68

9/9

¶69

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

M/S Susee Automotive Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Susee Automotive Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

Saravanakumar Vs The Joint Commissioner

Ruban Devadhas.N Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kumaravel Vs The District Collector

Jeyaprakash S Vs The Deputy General Manager

Karupanna Gounder Natarajan Suresh Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

Prema.I Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax