Tvl. Sethumeena Steels v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.30287 of 2018 Tvl.Sethumeena Steels Represented by its Proprietor Thiru.R.M.Annamalai No.62, A/1, Madras Main Road, Villupuram.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Cuddalore Cuddalore District.

2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Villupuram-I Assessment Circle Villupuram.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the order MP No.54/2018 dated 10.09.2018 passed by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax ACt 2006 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent TIN:33204682123/20152016 dated 30.12.2016 and dispose it on merits and in accordance with law.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondents :

Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri Government Advocate

O R D E R

Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal as time barred.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

4. The petitioner is an assessee under the first respondent. In respect of the subject matter assessment year viz., 20152016, the order of assessment was passed as early as in the year 2016 as stated supra. The petitioner did not question the said assessment order immediately. On the other hand, an appeal was filed after a period of more than 1 1/2 years and thus, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal, as time barred.

5. The only ground on which this writ petition is filed before this Court is that the issue involved in the impugned assessment order is mis-match and that the said issue was already considered and decided by this Court in a batch of cases in WP.No.105 of 2016 etc., dated 01.03.2017, reported in JKM Graphics Solutions Vs. CTO, ([2017] 1999 VST 343), thereby giving certain guidelines/directions to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment while dealing with mis-match issue. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessment order should be set aside by giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment by following the guidelines/directions issued in the above said common order passed by this Court.

6. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to seek such indulgence from this Court, merely because, the issue involved in the assessment order is mis-match issue, since the impugned assessment order was passed nearly 2 years ago, very much earlier to JKM Graphics decision and that the petitioner did not challenge the same in a manner known to law, if at all they are aggrieved against the same. On the other hand, they have chosen to file the appeal after a period of nearly 1 1/2 years and thus, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal as time barred. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any indulgence from this Court on the sole ground of delay and latches. Therefore, I find no merits to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mk

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Villupuram-I Assessment Circle Villupuram.

2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

+1cc to Mr.S.P.Asokan, Advocate, S.R.No.81458 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.80883 W.P.No.30287 of 2018 SAI(CO) GSP(17/12/2018)