M/S Vaigai Trading Company v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Feb 2025WP/30061/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP.Nos.30061 & 29654 of 2008 and MP.Nos.1, 2 & 1 of 2008; M/s.Vaigai Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others; writ of declaration; Article 226 of the Constitution; TNGST Act 1959 Section 17; Entry (X); Notification No.II(2)/CT/568 (f-8)/2002 dated 01.07.2002; “Arecanut including betelnut and seeval”; “Scented Supari (Betel Nut)”; Crane Betel Nut Powder Works 2007(6) VST 532; writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn; no costs; decided 24.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recording the petitioner's endorsement that it does not wish to pursue the Writ Petitions, the Court dismissed WP.Nos.30061 & 29654 of 2008 and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions as withdrawn, with no costs. ¶25-26

M/S Vaigai Trading Company Vs State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

2025:MHC:506

¶2

WP.Nos.30061 & 29654 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 24.02.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

WP.Nos.30061 & 29654 of 2008 and MP.Nos.1, 2 & 1 of 2008

¶9

M/.s.Vaigai Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director Mr.M.Asi Mohamed No.22, Railadi Street, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul.

¶10

.. Petitioner in both W.Ps.

¶11

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul (Rural), Dindigul.

¶14

N.V.K.Mohamed Sultan Rowther & Sons No.95, Market Road, Dindigul – 624 001.

¶15

.. Respondents in both W.Ps

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

WP.Nos.30061 & 29654 of 2008

¶19

Common Prayer : PETITIONs under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶20

India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration to declare that the Entry (X) of Notification No.II(2)/CT/568 (f-8)/2002 dated 01.07.2002 issued by the 1^st respondent under 17 of the TNGST Act 1959 which reads as “Arecanut including betelnut and seeval” would also include “Scented Supari (Betel Nut)” in view of the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2007(6) VST 532 in the matter of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works V. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tirupathi is illegal and ultra vires.

¶21

In both W.Ps For Pertitioner : Mr.N.Murali For Respondents : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶22

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

¶23

Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions,

¶24

submits that the petitioner does not wish to pursue these Writ Petitions and makes an endorsement to this effect.

¶25