Dismissed

Eswaran v. The Joint Commissioner / Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC10 Apr 2024WP(MD)/3384/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting his request to cancel GST/TIN registrations of tenants of respondent 5 in a disputed building, citing land-grabbing conviction and cancelled building plan and tax receipts. The court held GST registration can be cancelled only on statutory grounds, which were not met, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty given to petitioner to file separate suit to evict the occupant along with other co-owners.

Eswaran Vs The Joint Commissioner / Commercial Tax Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

Eswaran

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Joint Commissioner/Commercial Tax Officer, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, K.K.Nagar, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Asst. Commissioner Commercial Tax (1), Treasury Complex, Madurai Road, Theni, Theni District.

¶12

3.The Commissioner, Office of the Allinagaram Municipality, Theni, Theni District.

¶13

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Office, Tahsildar Nagar, Thamaraikulam, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶14

5.V.S.Sandeep ... Respondents

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A6/2270/2019 dated 5.9.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to cancel the TIN/GST numbers allotted to the tenants of the 5^th respondent in building at D.No.1369/D Nehruji Road, Theni.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramasundar Vijayraj

¶21

For R1 to R4 : Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan Government Advocate

¶22

For R5 : No appearance

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.A6/2270/2019 dated 05.09.2019, to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to cancel the TIN/GST numbers allotted to the tenants of the fifth respondent in D.No.1369/D, Nehruji Road, Theni.

¶25

2.By the impugned order, the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2016 has been disposed of by the first respondent. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶29

“ kDjhuu; jdJ kDtpy; my;ypefuk; fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu; jd;dpr;irahf gl;lh khWjy; nra;Js;sjhfTk;> fpuhk epu;thf mYtyuhy; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;l gl;lh khWjiy uj;J nra;AkhW kDjhuu; njuptpj;Js;shu;. fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu; jdJ thf;F%yj;jpy; epytup kl;LNk tR+y; nra;ag;gl;L epytup ,urPJ toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk;> M[u;gl;lhjhuu; S.V. Rthkpehjd; vd;gtuJ ngaupy; fpuhkf; fzf;Ffs; ,Ue;jjhy;> S.V. Rthkpehjd; ngaupy; epytup ,urPJfs; toq;fg;gl;Lte;jJ. ,e;epiyapy; jpU. S.V. Rthkpehjd; vd;gtu; ,we;Jtpl;l gbahy; thupR rhd;wpd;gb mtuJ xNu Mz; thuprhd kfd; V.S. re;jPg; vd;gtuplk; epytup tR+y; nra;ag;gl;L mtuJ ngaupy; epytup ,urPJ toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Njdp tl;lhl;rpau; jdJ mwpf;ifapYk; Kd;dhs; fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu; jpU.Kj;Jg;ghz;b vd;gtu; re;jPg; vd;gtUf;F toq;fpa fp];jp ,urPjpd; mbg;gilapy; vt;tpj gl;lh khWjYk; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gltpy;iy vd;W njuptpj;Js;shu;. NkYk; fpuhkf; fzf;F 19-y; (kuzg;gjpNtL) gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;s tpguq;fspd; gb ifg;gw;Wjhuu; ahNuDk; ,we;J tpl;lhy; mtu; ngaiu ifag;gw;wpy; ,Ue;J ePf;fTk;(ngsj;jp) mtUf;Fz;lhd thupRjhuu;fs; ngaupy; gjpT nra;aTk;> fpuhk epu;thf mYtyUf;F mjpfhuk; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu; ifg;gw;Wjhuu; jpU. S.V. Rthkpehjd; (gl;lhjhuu;) ,we;J tpl;lgbahy; mtuJ thupR V.S. re;jPg; vd;gtuJ ngaupy; epytup ,urPJ toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb epytup ,urPJ toq;fg;gl;ljd; mbg;gilapy; vt;tpj gl;lhkhWjYk; nra;ag;gltpy;iy vd tl;lhl;rpau; mwpf;ifapy; ,Ue;J njupatUfpwJ. ,Ug;gpDk; kw;w thupRjhuu;fistpl;L tpl;L VS. re;jPg; vd;gtuJ ngaupy; kl;Lk; jd;dpr;irahf epy tup urPjpy; ngau; khw;wk; nra;jJ jtW. vdNt ,J Nghd;w epfo;Tfs; ,dpNky; Vw;glhtz;zk; gzpGupAkhW my;ypefuk; Kd;dhs; fpuhk epu;thf mYtyiu vr;rupf;if nra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶30

3.The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent has illegally

¶31

3/8

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶34

obtained kist receipt for the property, in respect of which the petitioner's wife has 1/6^th share as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.216 of 2013 before the Subordinate Court, Theni, vide preliminary decree dated 17.10.2016.

¶35

4.It is submitted that the petitioner and his wife were the defaco complainants against the fifth respondent and two others in CC.No.1 of 2015 and by an order dated 20.04.2018, the Special Court for Land Grabbing, Theni in CC.No.1 of 2015 has convicted the accused therein, namely S.Rathinam, V.Sandeep (fifth respondent herein) and Pounmani.

¶36

5.It is submitted that the building plan and the tax receipt that was obtained by the fifth respondent have also been cancelled by the third respondent on 29.04.2020 during the pendency of the present writ petition, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.130/2015/F-1 dated 29.04.2020 and proceedings dated 24.03.2024. It is therefore submitted that the TIN registration obtained by the fifth respondent under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 r/w Rules made therein is liable to be cancelled.

¶37

4/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶40

6.It is further submitted that the migration of the TIN registration under the GST regime is also liable to be cancelled for the same reasons. However, the first respondent has wrongly rejected the request of the petitioner.

¶41

7.There is no representation on behalf of the fifth respondent.

¶42

8.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the TIN registration was obtained by the Proprietor of M/S.Sai Optics, namely, Sudhanthirapandiyan Sathiyamoorthy. The registration was obtained by the said Proprietor, Sri Sai Opticals, based on the lease agreement signed between the fifth respondent and the said Sundhanthirapandiyan Sathiyamoorthy and on the strength of the documents established possession over the property.

¶43

9.It is further submitted that the registration has been migrated after the GST Act came to be implemented with effect from 01.07.2017 and therefore, the question of cancelling the GST registration cannot be countenanced. It is submitted that at best, the petitioner can move appropriate proceedings to evict

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶47

the said Sudhanthirapandiyan Sathiyamoorthy, who has leased the property from the fifth respondent. It is therefore submitted that the GST registration cannot be cancelled, unless the circumstances specified under the provisions of the GST Act are attracted.

¶48

10.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and I have perused the counter filed by the first respondent also.

¶49

11.The cancellation of GST registration, which was earlier obtained under the provisions of TNVAT Act, 2006 r/w TNVAT Rules, 2007, can be cancelled only if the circumstances prescribed under the statute are attracted. The petitioner has not been able to produce any documents to show that the registration obtained and migrated under the GST regime, warrants cancellation. If at all the petitioner wants to evict the occupant, who has occupied the property on the strength of the construction put up by the fifth respondent, the petitioner will have to file a separate suit along with other co-owners against the fifth respondent and the said Sudhanthirapandiyan Sathiyamoorthy. Therefore, there is no merits in the present

¶50

6/8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶53

writ petition.

¶54

12.With the above liberty, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶55

Index : Yes / No 10.04.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To

¶56

1.The Joint Commissioner/Commercial Tax Officer, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, K.K.Nagar, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶57

2.The Asst. Commissioner Commercial Tax (1), Treasury Complex, Madurai Road, Theni, Theni District.

¶58

3.The Commissioner, Office of the Allinagaram Municipality, Theni, Theni District.

¶59

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Office, Tahsildar Nagar, Thamaraikulam, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶60

7/8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶63

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶64

¶65

W.P.(MD) No.3384 of 2020

¶66

10.04.2024

¶67

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

¶68

8/8

Eswaran v. The Joint Commissioner / Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eswaran v. The Joint Commissioner / Commercial 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

Chinnathambi.R Vs the Govt of India

M.Ramanathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Arasan Beedi Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner

Dhanalakshmi Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Venkateshwaran.M Vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Ram Agencies Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax