← Library
Madras High CourtWP/1798/2017disposed of

Tvl.Sri Amman Steel v. The Commercial Tax Officer

2017-01-25Honourable Mr Justice Rajiv Shakdher3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 25.01.2017 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER W.P.Nos.1798 and 1799 of 2017 and WMP No.1785 to 1788 of 2017 Tvl.Sri Amman Steel, represented by its Proprietor, No.1,2, Vagai Market Complex, Thozhudur Main Road, Keelakalpoondi (Post), Tittagudi Taluk - 606 303.

.. Petitioner in both the W.Ps vs.

The Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Virudhachalam.

.. Respondent in both the W.Ps * * * Prayer in WP No.1798/2017 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ to call for the records of the respondent in his order of assessment in TIN.33564426330/2014-15, dated 30.10.2015, and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after considering the input tax credit available in their credit and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Prayer in WP No.1799/2017 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ to call for the records of the respondent in his order of assessment in TIN.33564426330/2013-14, dated 31.12.2015, and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after considering the input tax credit available in their credit and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

* * * For Petitioner in : Mr.A.Ravichandran both W.Ps.

For Respondent in : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai both W.Ps Additional Government Pleader

COMMON ORDER

1. Issue notice. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 1.1. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. Writ petition No.1798 of 2017 concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015, while writ petition No.1799 of 2017 concerns AY 2013-2014.

2.1. By virtue of W.P.No.1798 of 2017, challenge is laid to assessment order dated 30.10.2015, while by virtue of W.P.No.1799 of 2017 challenge is laid to assessment order dated 31.12.2015.

2.2. By virtue of the order passed qua AY 2014-2015, the petitioner has been called upon to pay a tax amounting to Rs.5,44,471/-, and penalty in the sum of Rs.8,16,707/-. 2.3. In so far the AY 2013-2014 is concerned, the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax amounting to Rs.2,49,371/- and penalty equivalent to Rs.3,74,057/-.

3. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the main plank, based, on which, the impugned orders are pivoted is that the information available to the Department, via their web report, and that, which was found reflected in the monthly returns filed by the petitioner, were at variance.

4. It it the petitioner's case that the web report and/or material on the basis of which, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders were not supplied to him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the respondent could not have proceeded to pass the impugned order, merely, on account of mismatch in information, in the monthly returns of the petitioner.

5.1. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments : (i).ALTHAF SHOES (P) LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VALLUVARKOTTAM ASSESSMENT CIRCULE, CHENNAI, 2012 (50) VST 179 (Mad) ;

(ii).SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VADAPALANI - I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER, 2013 (60) VST 283 (Mad) ; and

(iii).INFINITI WHOLESALE LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), KOYAMBEDU ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, KOYAMBEDU, CHENNAI, 2015 (82) VST 457 (Mad).

6. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, who appears for the respondent, says that the respondent ought to have supplied the material and information, which forms basis of the impugned order. 6.1. Furthermore, Mr.Annamalai, says, he cannot, but submit that in view of the judgments, referred to above, of this Court, mismatch in information cannot form the basis of assessment.

7. Thus, having regard to the record placed before me and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the respondent to redo the assessment, albeit, in accordance with law, after supplying the requisite information and material to the petitioner.

7.1. Needless to pay, the respondent will afford personal hearing in the matter to the petitioner before passing a fresh order.

7.2. While passing a fresh order, the respondent will, in particular, bear in mind the judgments of this Court, referred to hereinabove.

8. The captioned writ petitions are is disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid direction. Resultantly, pending applications shall stand closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gg To The Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Virudhachalam.

+1 cc to Mr.A.Ravichandran Advocate sr 5552 +1 cc to the Special Government Pleader Taxes sr 4878 W.P.Nos.1798 and 1799 of 2017 and WMP Nos.1785 to 1788 of 2017 nml(co) aa03/03/2017