Partly allowed

Tvl.Guru Construction v. Deputy State Tax Officer I

Madras HC17 Apr 2024WP(MD)/9430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed impugned tax assessment orders passed ex-parte due to the petitioner's illness. It directed the petitioner to deposit 10% disputed tax and file objections to enable the department to pass a fresh order on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner directed to deposit 10% disputed tax and file objections to obtain a fresh order on merits.

Tvl.Guru Construction Vs Deputy State Tax Officer I — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9430 and 9431 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.9430 and 9431 of 2024 &

¶7

W.M.P.(MD).Nos.8558,8559,8560 and 8561 of 2024

¶8

Tvl.Guru Construction rep by its Proprietor: Balusamy No.4, 3^rd floor, Vembarpatti Road Gopalpatti, Dindigul-624 308 ... Petitioner in both cases

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Vedasandur Aassessment Circle Dindigul ... Respondent in both cases

¶11

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Order Number:ZD33082321027T and ZD331023097139F dated 04.08.2023 and 17.10.2023 relating to the tax period 2021-22 and 2022-23, quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass order afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file the objections and to produce documents.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 4_

¶13

W.P.(MD) No.9430 and 9431 of 2024

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raja Jeya Chandra Paul in both cases For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP in both cases

¶15

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶16

Writ Petitions are filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

¶17

Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Order Number:ZD33082321027T and ZD331023097139F dated 04.08.2023 and 17.10.2023 relating to the tax period 2021-22 and 2022-23, quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass order afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file the objections and to produce documents.

¶18

Petitioner challenges the impugned orders dated 04.082.023 and 17.10.2023 passed for the assessment years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. In both the cases the petitioner has challenged the impugned order belatedly on the ground that petitioner could not participate in the proceedings before the respondent as he fell ill and was suffering from jaundice. It is noticed that the petitioner has approached long after the orders have been passed on 04.08.2023 and 17.10.2023. It is also noticed that petitioner had filed application for rectification of the order passed for the assessment

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 4_

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.9430 and 9431 of 2024

¶21

year 2022-2023 on 19.02.2024, which came to be dismissed on 20.02.2024.

¶22

Be that as it may, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner may have a case on merits to defend. Since the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate that the petitioner was indeed suffering from jaundice, Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent on terms subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax to the credit of the department within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with the reply to the respective show cause notices which culminated in the impugned order. Impugned order which stands quashed shall be treated as corrigendum. It is expected that petitioner will file a consolidated reply within the aforesaid period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to compliance of the above conditions, the respondent shall take up the case afresh and pass fresh order on merits in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions contained herein it will be construed as if this Writ Petition was

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 4_

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.9430 and 9431 of 2024

¶25

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶26

kpr

¶27

dismissed at the time of admission.

¶28

Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

17.04.2024.

¶30

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order kpr

¶31

¶32

Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Vedasandur Aassessment Circle Dindigul

¶33

W.P.(MD)Nos.9430 and 9431 of 2024

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 4_

Tvl.Guru Construction v. Deputy State Tax Officer I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Guru Construction v. Deputy State Tax Officer I

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

Theiventhiran Vs The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)

Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Ramani Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Chinnathambi Rajeswari Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Al Qahir International Vs The Tuticorin Customs House

Tvl. Annasri Containers, Vs State Tax Officer (St)