M/S.Mahalakshmi Electricals And Hardwares, v. The State Tax Officer(Fac),
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.10.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.28480 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.33227 & 33228 of 2018 M/s.Mahalakshmi Electricals & Hardwares Rep. by its Proprietor Shri B.Dinesh No.126, Main Road, Kothandapuram, Mahaiyur Post, Vandavasi - 604 502.
Tiruvannamalai District.
... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer (FAC) Vandavasi Tiruvannamalai District.
... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his impugned proceedings made in TIN:33404603346/2015-2016 dated 19.04.2018 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 19.04.2018 passed in respect of the assessment year 2015-2016.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is mis-match and the said issue was already considered and decided by this Court in WP.No.105 of 2016 etc., dated 01.03.2017, reported in JKM Graphics Solutions Vs. CTO, ([2017] 1999 VST 343). Therefore, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment as per the guidelines/directions issued by this Court in the above said case.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not at all filed their reply to the notice of proposal dated 09.03.2016.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that the only issued involved in this case is mis-match and that the said issue was already considered and decided by this Court in WP.No.105 of 2016 etc., dated 01.03.2017, reported in JKM Graphics Solutions Vs. CTO, ([2017] 1999 VST 343), wherein and whereby various directions/guidelines were issued to the Assessing Officer as to how the assessment orders dealing with mis-match issue has to be passed. Therefore, in this case also the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment only by following the procedure/guidelines issued by this Court in the above said case. At the same time, as it is seen that the very notice of proposal was issued on 09.03.2016 well before the said order passed by this Court in WP.No.105 of 2016 etc., dated 01.03.2017, reported in JKM Graphics Solutions Vs. CTO, ([2017] 1999 VST 343) and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has not filed their reply to the said notice, an indulgence of remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer can be shown only by putting the petitioner on some terms.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the respondent under the following terms and conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall pay 25% of the tax liability and file their reply to the notice of proposal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b) On receipt of such payment of tax liability and the reply within the time stated supra, the respondent shall consider the objections and re-do the assessment by following the directions/guidelines issued by this Court in WP.No.105 of 2016 etc., dated 01.03.2017, reported in JKM Graphics Solutions Vs. CTO, ([2017] 1999
VST 343), within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mk To The State Tax Officer (FAC) Vandavasi, Tiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Hemalatha, Advocate, S.R.No. 75096 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Taxes), S.R.No. W.P.No.28480 of 2018 AP(CO) GN(22/11/2018)