M/S.Malaravan Marketing v. The Appellate Deputy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR W.P.(MD).Nos.4243 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3385 of 2017 and 3384 of 2017 M/s.Malaravan Marketing Represented by its Proprietor, No.7/2D. New Dharapuram Road, Palani.
..Petitioner Vs.
1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner CT, Madurai North, O/o. ADC CT-Madurai North, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Palani I Assessment Circle, O/o AC CT-Palani, Palani.
..Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarifide Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent herein in impugned notice TIN No.33125282403/12-13, 13-14 dated 15.02.2017 quash the same and direct the second respondent not to proceed further in terms of the impugned proceeding till the disposal of the appeal pending before the first respondent or alternatively direct the first respondent to conduct the final hearing in AP.No.271/15. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vaitheeswarn For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the demand notice dated, 15.02.2017 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,060/-.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed an appeal before the appellate
authority and he has also paid 25% of the tax demanded. However, the appeal is pending. Even the Interlocutory application filed by him for stay of the order of assessment is pending before the Appellate Authority. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of proviso section 42(2) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner is entitled to get a direction from this Court restraining the second respondent from proceeding with recovery in terms of the impugned order.
3. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of section 42(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As per the proviso to section 42(2), the recovery shall not be taken or continued only if the assesee has complied with an order by any of the authorities to whom the dealer has appealed or applied for revision under Sections 51,52,54,57,59 or 60. In the present case, Interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for stay is also pending and no order has been passed. 4.Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following direction:
"It is open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority and pursue the application for stay, which is pending before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the Interlocutory Application for stay on merits, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time the Interlocutory application is decided by the Appellate Authority, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance."
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner CT, Madurai North, O/o. ADC CT-Madurai North, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Palani I Assessment Circle, O/o AC CT-Palani, Palani.
+1cc to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.14695 TRP JS/RR/22.03.2017/3P-4C W.P.(MD).Nos.4243 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3385 of 2017 14.03.2017