Petition No.13301 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011 M/s.Deccan Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd v. The Special Committee under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing onbehalf of the respondents, has no objection for this Court passingsuch an order.4. In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file therelevant documents relating to the assessment year, CST 2002-03,before the second respondent, within a…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 23.06.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.13301 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011M/s.Deccan Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd.,No.4, 7th Avenue, Harrington Road, Chetput, Chennai – 600 031.... Petitionervs.
The Special Committee under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act, 1959, Secretariat, Chennai.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai.... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords of the first respondent in its proceedings in SCP NO.78 of2011, Ref. No.M1/16251/2008 and quash the order dated 10.03.2011 madetherein and further direct the second respondent to consider theexport documents filed by the petitioner on 21.01.2008 in support ofits claim of exemption under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales TaxAct, 1956. relating to the assessment Year CST 2002-03.For petitioner : Mr.B.RaveendranFor Respondents: Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, Special Government Pleader (T)ORDERHeard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerand the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, appearing onbehalf of the respondents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner is that in the impugned order of the firstrespondent, dated 10.03.2011, it has been mentioned that thepetitioner can file the declaration forms before the Assessing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer, based on which the Assessing Officer could pass anappropriate order of assessment. In fact, the petitioner had alreadysubmitted the declaration forms before the Assessing Officer and itis only the export documents which had not been filed by thepetitioner. Therefore, the second respondent may be directed toconsider the export documents to be filed by the petitioner beforepassing an order of assessment for the assessment year, CST 2002-03.
Operative part
The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing onbehalf of the respondents, has no objection for this Court passingsuch an order.4. In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file therelevant documents relating to the assessment year, CST 2002-03,before the second respondent, within a period of fifteen days fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of theexport documents to be filed by the petitioner, the second respondentshall consider the same and pass an assessment order relating to theassessment year, CST 2002-03, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub. Asst. RegistrarcseTo1.The Special Committee under Section 16-D of the TNGST Act, 1959, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai.1 cc to Mr.B.Raveendran , Advocate, Sr.No.362851 cc To Special Government Pleader,(Taxes) SR.No.36334W.P.No.13301 of 2011andM.P.No.1 of 2011bvr(co)pmk.27.6.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.