Mondelez India Foods Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax

Madras HC21 Jan 2026WP/38919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; C. Saravanan, J.; writ petitions of 2025; mention; correction of typographical error; common order dated 21.01.2026; Appellate Order dated 06.04.2023; Appellate Commissioner; 3rd Respondent; Assessment Year 2011-2012; TNVAT Act 2006 Section 63(2); remand to Assessing authority; turnover Rs.70,36,34,039/-; Tang; Halls; Bytes; Cocoa; tax rates 4%, 5%, 12.5%, 14.5%; fresh order copies.

What did the court decide?

Mention allowed; extract in Paragraph No.6 of the common order dated 21.01.2026 corrected to restore the omitted rate phrase; other aspects of the common order unaltered; Registry to carry out corrections and issue fresh order copies to the parties. ¶17-18

Mondelez India Foods Private Limited Vs Commissioner of State Tax — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17-18

Issue for consideration

Whether the extract in Paragraph No.6 of the common order dated 21.01.2026 should be corrected to restore the phrase omitted from the Appellate Order dated 06.04.2023, viz. 'at 4% from 01-04-2011 to 11-07-2011 and at 5% from 12-07-2011 to 31-03-2012'.

¶8

Court's answer

The extract in Paragraph No.6 of the common order dated 21.01.2026 shall be modified so as to restore the omitted phrase 'at 4% from 01-04-2011 to 11-07-2011 and at 5% from 12-07-2011 to 31-03-2012' from the original order.

¶17-18

Ratio / Principle

The other aspects of the order dated 21.01.2026 shall remain unaltered.

¶23

Key takeaways

Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue fresh order copies to the parties.ratio¶24-25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C. Saravanan, J.), order dated 26.02.2026 in W.P.Nos.38919, 38924, 38929, 38933 and 38937 of 2025: on a mention by the petitioner's counsel, supported by a Memo dated 06.02.2026 and unopposed by the learned Government Advocate, the extract in Paragraph No.6 of the common order dated 21.01.2026 was modified to restore a phrase omitted while extracting the Appellate Order dated 06.04.2023 of the Appellate Commissioner (3rd Respondent) for Assessment Year 2011-2012, viz. assessment of 'Halls, Bytes and Cocoa' at 4% from 01-04-2011 to 11-07-2011 and at 5% from 12-07-2011 to 31-03-2012 (alongside 'Tang' at 12.5% and 14.5% for the respective periods). The corrected extract records remand to the Assessing authority under sub-Section (2) of Section 63 TNVAT Act, 2006, with the order levying tax at 12.5%/14.5% on the turnover of Rs.70,36,34,039/- set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. All other aspects of the common order dated 21.01.2026 remain unaltered; Registry directed to carry out the corrections and issue fresh order copies.

¶1

W.P.Nos.38919, 38924, 38929, 38933 and 38937 of 2025

¶2

W.P.Nos.38919, 38924, 38929, 38933 and 38937 of 2025

¶3

and W.M.P.Nos.43550, 43552, 43553, 43555, 43559, 43561, 43567, 43568, 43571 and 43574 of 2025

¶4

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶5

These cases were listed today under the caption ‘for being mentioned’

¶6

at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is

¶8

a typographical error in the extract in Paragraph No.6 of the common order dated 21.01.2026.

¶9

It is submitted that while extracting the relevant portion of the Appellate Order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Appellate Commissioner namely, the 3^rd Respondent for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the phrase “at 4% from 01-04-2011 to 11-07-2011 and at 5% from 12-07-2011 to 31-03-2012” from the original order has been missed out in the extract in the aforesaid Paragraph No.6 of the order dated 21.01.2026.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a Memo dated

¶11

06.02.2026 to that effect.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.Nos.38919, 38924, 38929, 38933 and 38937 of 2025

¶15

The learned Government Advocate for the Respondents raises no

¶16

objection for such modification.

¶17

Recording the same, the extract in Paragraph No.6 of the common

¶18

order dated 21.01.2026 shall be modified as under:-

¶19

“...As the correctness of these turnovers have to be verified and the turnover of the product “Tang” has to be arrived and assessed separately and to assess the turnover of other products, “Halls, Bytes and Cocoa” at appropriate rates and to arrive at correct tax demand, tax payment and balance/excess of tax, which are to be done by the Assessing authority and as per the provisions of subSection (2) of Section 63 TNVAT Act, 2006 the Appellate Authority is not entitled to go into the merits of the facts and records which were not produced before the assessing authority but produced before it for the first time, the matter is remitted to the Assessing authority. The Assessing authority is directed to issue fresh notice to the Appellant, upon which the Appellant is directed to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing authority. The Assessing authority is directed the verify the documents produced by the Appellant and arrive at the correct turnover of “Tang” and assess this turnover at 12.5% from 01-04-2011 to 11-07-2011 and at 14.5% from 12-07-2011 to 31-03-2012 and assess the rest of the turnover pertaining to “Halls. Bytes and Cocoa” at 4% from 01-04-2011 to 11-07-2011 and at 5% from 12-07-2011 to 31-032012 and arrive at correct tax liability and pass order in accordance with the and after providing reasonable opportunity to the Appellant. With these directions, the order of the Assessing authority levying tax at 12.5%/14.5% on the turnover of Rs.70,36,34,039/- is set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal is remanded .”

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.Nos.38919, 38924, 38929, 38933 and 38937 of 2025

¶23