← Library
Madras High CourtWP/22378/2016allowed

Malathy, v. The Commissioner - Cum -

2016-06-29Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.22378 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.19083 & 19084 of 2016 Malathy W/o.Shanmugam Proprietrix, Malathi Brick Industry No.37/A/2, Pidari Amman Kovil Street Poovam, Varichikudy, Karaikal, U.T of Puducherry.

.. Petitioner ..Vs..

The Commissioner -cum- Revising Authority Commercial Taxes Department Puducherry.

.. Respondent Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in his proceedings No.5001/CTD/Revision/2015 dated 06.10.2015 and the consequential Proceedings No.5001/CTD/Revision/2015/1112 dated 23.10.2015, quashing the same and to further direct the respondent to receive and admit the revision petition by taking into consideration of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh For Respondents: Mr.C.T.Ramesh, A.G.P., Asst. by Mr.A.Tamilvanan, G.A.,

ORDER

Heard Mr.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.T.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader assisted by Mr.A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and with the consent of either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2.The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the orders passed by the respondent, the revisional authority under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (Puducherry VAT Act), rejecting the petitioner's revision petition on the ground that it was presented beyond the period of limitation as well as the beyond the condonable limit prescribed under the Statute. The reason assigned by the respondent in the impugned order is perfectly justified especially in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in the case of Indian Coffee Worker's Co-op., Society Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [(2002) 1 CTC 406]. 3.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court proposes to exercise its discretion and permit the petitioner to pursue the revision petition for the following reasons.

The impugned order of assessment was passed on 16.04.2015 and served on the petitioner on 20.04.2015. In terms of Section 45(1) of the Act, the period of thirty days for filing the revision expired on 19.05.2015 and the extended period of limitation of ninety days expired on 18.07.2015. In the mean time, the petitioner was served with a recovery notice under Form-U dated 27.05.2015. The petitioner appears to have not been properly informed as to what are the remedies available to her under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act and therefore, the petitioner had directly approached this Court challenging the Form-U notice dated 27.05.2015, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.18033 of 2015.

4.The Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the counsels, including the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged the order of assessment dated 16.04.2015 by filing an appeal or a revision and therefore, she cannot challenge the consequential recovery notice dated 27.05.2015 and accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed by an order dated 24.06.2015. It is thereafter, the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in Form-Y under Rule 36(a) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. 5.From the above facts it is seen that the revisional authority can exercise its power to condone the limitation upto 18.07.2015.

However, in the interregnum the petitioner having approached this Court and filed a writ petition and that writ petition having been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not exercise her right to challenge the order of assessment by filing a revision or an appeal, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to prosecute the revision petition.

6.The reasons assigned in this order are on account of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and this order should not be treated as a precedent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The delay in filing the revision petition stands condoned and the respondent is directed to consider the revision petition on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar pgp To The Commissioner -cum- Revising Authority Commercial Taxes Department Puducherry.

+1cc to The Government Pleader(Puducherry) Sr.36533 W.P.No.22378 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.19083 & 19084 of 2016 GJII(CO) RVR 05/08/2016