Dismissed¶38

M/S. Larsen & Toubro Limited, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Feb 2025WP/22027/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn; withdrawal/non-pursuance endorsement; Larsen & Toubro Limited ECC Division; TNVAT Act 2006 Section 13(1) to (8); TNVAT Rules 2007 Rule 9(1) to (4); unconstitutionality challenge; Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 286(2), 300A; charging section Section 5 TNVAT Act with Rule 8(5) clauses (a) to (e) TNVAT Rules; Writ of Certiorari; Rejection Notice TIN:33800620015/2010-11 dated 06.04.2011; Article 226; no costs; no merits decided; no citable precedent value.

What did the court decide?

None - writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed as withdrawn upon the petitioner's endorsement of non-pursuance, with no costs. ¶38

M/S. Larsen & Toubro Limited, Vs the State of Tamil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed as withdrawn upon the petitioner's endorsement of non-pursuance, with no costs.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 13(1) to (8) with provisos of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 9(1) to (4) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 are unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 286(2) and 300A of the Constitution of India, and derogatory and contradictory to the charging section (Section 5 of TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 8(5) clauses (a) to (e) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007). +1 more

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Recording the endorsement made by learned counsel Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar that the petitioner does not pursue the writ petitions, the Court dismissed W.P.Nos.22027 and 22028 of 2011 and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions (M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011) as withdrawn, imposing no costs. No substantive determination was made on the constitutionality of the TNVAT provisions or on the rejection notice; this is a bare procedural disposition and yields no citable legal holding.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT - Common Order dated 06.02.2025 (authored by Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth; bench comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan) - W.P.Nos.22027 and 22028 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 - M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited ECC Division (styled 'Appellant' in the cause title, treated as petitioner) v. State of Tamil Nadu (Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments), Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and Deputy Commissioners (CT-I) and (CT-II), Large Tax Payers Unit. Filed in 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petitions had sought (i) a Writ of Declaration striking down Section 13(1) to (8) with provisos of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 9(1) to (4) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 286(2) and 300A of the Constitution and derogatory/contradictory to the charging section (Section 5 of TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 8(5) clauses (a) to (e) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007), and (ii) a Writ of Certiorari quashing a Rejection Notice in TIN:33800620015/2010-11 dated 06.04.2011 from the files of the second respondent. On 06.02.2025 the petitioner's counsel made an endorsement of non-pursuance; recording it, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and the connected miscellaneous petitions as withdrawn, without costs. No view was expressed on the merits; the order contains no citable holding.

¶1

2025:MHC:343

¶2

W.P.Nos.22027 and 22028 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 06.02.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.Nos.22027 and 22028 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011

¶8

M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited ECC Division, No.10, Club House Road Chennai – 600 002.

¶9

.. Appellant in both W.Ps.

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Commercial Taxes and

¶12

Religious Endowments,

¶13

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

.. Respondent in W.P.No.22027 of 2011

¶15

Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶16

Commercial Taxes Department,

¶17

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶18

.. Respondent in both W.Ps

¶19

The Deputy Commissioner (CT-I) Large Tax Payers Unit, 34(123) V Floor, Dugar Towers, Marshall Road, Egmore,

¶20

Chennai – 600 008.

¶21

.. Respondent in W.P.No.22027 of 2011

¶22

The Deputy Commissioner (CT-II) Large Tax Payers Unit,

¶23

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

¶24

1/4

¶25

W.P.Nos.22027 and 22028 of 2011

¶26

34(123) V Floor, Dugar Towers, Marshall Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶27

.. Respondent in W.P.No.22028 of 2011

¶28

Prayer in W.P.No.22027 of 2011: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration to declare and strike down the impugned provisions of Section 13(1) to (8) with provisos of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 9(1) to (4) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 286(2) and 300A of the Constitution of India and derogatory and contradictory to the provisions of the charging section viz., Section 5 of TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 8(5) clauses (a) to (e) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007.

¶29

Prayer in W.P.No.22028 of 2011: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari call for the records of the impugned Rejection Notice in TIN:33800620015/2010-11 dated 06.04.2011 from the files of the second respondent herein, quash the same.

¶30

In both W.Ps. For Petitioner : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar

¶31

For Respondents : Mr.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶32

C O M M O N O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶33

Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis an endorsement that the petitioner does not pursue these Writ Petitions,

¶35

2/4