The Commissioner v. Dinup Traders

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2015

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A.No.38 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 1.The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry.

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Mahe.

3.The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Mahe.

.. Appellants/Respondents Vs.

Dinup Traders, rep by its Managing Director, P.K.Dinup S/o.Kumaran P.

Deepalayam, Edanoor, New Mahe, Mahe.

.. Respondent/Petitioner This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this court dated 10.12.2014 made in W.P.No.31041 of 2014 issue a writ of certiorari in calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 29.10.2014 made in No.543/CTD/HQ/Revision/2014/1266 on the file of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry, the first respondent herein confirming the order dated 20.01.2014 made in No.34730006900/CTO(M)/ 2013-14 on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe, Puducherry the second respondent herein and quash the same. For Appellants : Mr.A.Tamilvanan, GA (Pondicherry)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) The instant intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 10.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.31041 of 2014.

2.

The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that the respondent herein was registered as Dealers in sales of Live chicken, egg, cattle feed, poultry feed, creackers, C.P. Fittings, leather items and chappals under the provisions of Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Commercial Tax Officer cancelled its registration certificate on 20.01.2014 on the ground that the writ petitioner/respondent herein had evaded payment of tax and also failed to pay penalty for two assessment years despite issuance of orders under best of judgment assessment, for which a notice was issued by the second respondent on 4.10.2013. Despite notice, the writ petitioner failed to deposit the tax. Thereagainst, a revision application was filed, which was also dismissed by order dated 29.10.2014. Being aggrieved the writ petitioner came up with the writ petition, questioning the legality and validity of both orders.

3.

The learned Single Judge, after having examined all facts of the case, came to the conclusion that as on date when the revisioning authority passed the impugned order, the appeals filed by the writ petitioner against the orders for payment of assessment tax, which was the main cause for cancellation of the registration, were allowed. The appellate authority by order dated 28.4.2014 remanded for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 20.1.2014 as confirmed in the revision by order dated 29.10.2014, was set aside.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein/respondents therein, would submit that the respondent herein is the habitual defaulter and the extreme step of cancellation of its registration was taken to save the tax of the State, which in case of the respondent herein, for the assessment years 2011-2012 and 20122013, is accumulated to Rs.55,16,146/-. 5.

We have examined the pleadings, documents appended thereto and also considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

6.

The issue before us is when the revision application was pending against the order of cancellation of registration, the reason which necessitated cancellation of the registration, did not exist, whether order in revision upholding the cancellation of the

registration was correct? It is not in dispute that the respondent herein despite notices, after assessment orders, had failed to make payment. However, the respondent herein had chosen to prefer an appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for reassessment and as such, the basis for cancellation of registration was not available on the day when the case was under consideration before the Revisioning Authority. Thus, we do not find any error, irregularity or irrationality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it is open for the authorities to take proper steps as and when it is necessitated in order to ensure the compliance of payment of proper tax and provisions of law.

7.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vvk To 1.The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry.

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Mahe.

3.The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Mahe.

+ 1 c to the Special Government Pleader SR.6497 W.A.No.38 of 2015 JSV(CO) Eu 25.02.15