Olympia Plastics v. Assistant Commissioner- State Tax
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Olympia Plastics, 10, Shanmugam Street, Seven Wells, Chennai 600 001.
(Represented by Proprietor P.K.Zukkur) ... Petitioner Vs.
Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Muthialpet Assessment Circle, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building Chennai North Division, Chennai 600 003.
... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in impugned order issued vide Reference No.ZD330423082834D, ZD330423082900M, ZD330423082961E, ZD330423082422Q and ZD330423082711N dated 18.04.2023 and 1/6
quash the same and consequentially direct the respondent to grant sufficient opportunity of being heard and decide in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Senguttuvan For Respondent : Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.04.2023.
2. Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without issuing any show cause notice and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. Further, the said assessment order has not been served to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Bank informed about the attachment order passed by the Department attaching the bank account of the 2/6
petitioner. Thereafter only, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order passed by the respondent. Immediately, he informed his consultant about the said assessment order and bank attachment made by the respondent. The consultant of the petitioner informed that since he was not-well and he was at his native place, he was unable to follow up the e-portal of the petitioner and he had also filed an affidavit in this regard. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the order.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that she was informed by the Department that the petitioner had repeatedly accessed the e-portal and hence, she would contend that the reasons assigned by the petitioner is not genuine and requests this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner had already appointed a consultant to file his returns and to follow up the proceedings, no access was made by him to the eportal of the respondent. 3/6
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. On perusal of the affidavit of the consultant, it appears that due to his ill-health, he was not able to follow-up the said e-portal. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had repeated access to the portal. Though the said submission of the respondent appears to be genuine, still the assessment order has been passed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner approached this Court and seeks for an opportunity.
8. In view of the above, to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to provide an opportunity to the petitioner and hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 is hereby set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remitted back to the respondent and the respondent is directed to provide sufficient 4/6
opportunity for filing the reply to the petitioner and after affording opportunity of personal hearing, pass appropriate order.
9. Further, it is made clear that since the impugned order is set aside, the bank attachment will no longer survive.
10. The petitioner is directed to file his reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the assessment order along with the bank attachment made passed by the respondent will remain in force.
11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. 02.11.2023 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa 5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa To Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Muthialpet Assessment Circle, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building Chennai North Division, Chennai 600 003.
02.11.2023 (1/2) 6/6