Writ Petition No. 14499 of 2011 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 265
- Finance Act, 1994 s. 68(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar lanTo:1 THE GENERAL MANAGER (TAMIL NADU) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE GREAMS ROAD CHENNAI-6.2 THE AREA MANAGER…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.6.2011CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.14499 of 2011 S.P.TRANSPORTS [ PETITIONER ] REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR S.PEER MOHIDEEN NO.32, QUAID E-MILLETH STREET, AZAD NAGAR AMINJIKARAI CHENNAI-29. Vs1 THE GENERAL MANAGER (TAMIL NADU) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE GREAMS ROAD CHENNAI-6.2 THE AREA MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE VELLORE. [ RESPONDENTS ]Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of declaration to declare that the deduction of Service Tax by the Respondent-Corporation from the amount payable to the petitioner is illegal and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India in the light of the specific provisions issued under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v)of Service Tax Rules 1994 as amended and further read with ExemptionNotification No.34/2004-S.T., dated 3.12.2004. For petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for M/s.Mcgan Law Firm For respondents : Mr.A.S.ThambuswamyO R D E R Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy, the learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 11.6.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 11.6.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 11.6.2011, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar lanTo:1 THE GENERAL MANAGER (TAMIL NADU) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE GREAMS ROAD CHENNAI-6.2 THE AREA MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE, VELLORE.+1 CC to Mr.McGan Law Firm, Advocate, S.R.No.36406 +1 CC to Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy, Advocate, S.R.No.36206Writ Petition No.14499 of 2011SGL(CO)SRA(30/6/2011)
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, with the abovedirections
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 265; Finance Act, 1994 — s. 68(2).
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.