Marikar (Motors) Limited, v. The Deputy Commercial Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.02.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.7158 of 2004 & W.M.P.No.8451 of 2004 Marikar (Motors Limited) College Road Nagercoil - 629 001.

.. Petitioner v.

1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Tower Junction) Nagercoil.

2. The Joint Commissioner (R.P.) Commercial Taxes Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai - 600 005.

.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent herein in his R.P.No.JJ2/MV/Entry Tax/16/2002, dated 19.9.2003 and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to consider the Revision Petition on merits.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Inbarajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai Addl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in the proceedings of the second respondent in R.P.No.JJ2/MV/Entry Tax/16/2002, dated 19.9.2003, to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to consider the Revision Petition on merits and pass orders.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent had erroneously rejected the revision filed by the petitioner finding that only an appeal shall lie as against the order impugned in the revision.

3. Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990, the revision filed by the petitioner is very much maintainable. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner had challenged the penal interest levied by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by its order dated 25.07.2002.

4. Since the petitioner has challenged the levy of penal interest, as per section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990 , only a revision is maintainable.

5. Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that the revision is maintainable as per section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990. The second respondent should not have rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has got an appeal remedy.

4. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.9.2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to entertain the revision and decide the matter afresh, on merits and in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Rj s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Tower Junction) Nagercoil.

2.The Joint Commissioner (R.P.) Commercial Taxes Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai - 600 005.

+ 1 cc to Mr.N.Inbarajan, Advocate SR 10038 + 1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader SR 10165 nm(co) prk24/2 W.P.No.7158 of 2004 & W.M.P.No.8451 of 2004