Tvl. Namakkal District Chamber BricksManufacturers Association v. Commercial Tax Officer,Namakkal City Assessment Circle,Namakkal, Namakkal District
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M JAICHANDRENWRIT
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even though returns had been filed by the petitioner for the respective assessment years, the respondent had wrongly arrived at the conclusion that no returns had been filed by the petitioner, intime. However…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 29-03-2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition Nos.5523 and 5524 of 2011 andM.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 Tvl. Namakkal District Chamber BricksManufacturers Association rep. By itsPresident S.Subramanian, No.182-A, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal – 637 001....Petitioner in both W.PsVersusCommercial Tax Officer, Namakkal City Assessment Circle, Namakkal, Namakkal District.....Respondent in both W.PsPrayer in W.P.No.5523 of 2011: Petition filed, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and to quash the assessment order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the respondent in TINNo.33033122472/2009-2010 and to direct the respondent to consider the monthly returns already submitted by the petitioner and to pass fresh assessment order under Section 22(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value AddedTax Act, 2006 after issuing pre-assessment notice to the petitioner and after getting the reply of the petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No.5524 of 2011: Petition filed, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and to quash the assessment order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the respondent in TINNo.33033122472/2008-2009 and to direct the respondent to consider the monthly returns already submitted by the petitioner and to pass fresh assessment order under Section 22(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value AddedTax Act, 2006 after issuing pre-assessment notice to the petitioner and after getting the reply of the petitioner. For Petitionerin both W.Ps : Mr.A.ImmanuelFor Respondent in both W.Ps : Mr.R.Mahadevan Additional Government Pleader (T)C O M M O N
O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax)appearing on behalf of the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learnedAdditional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders, under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Operative part
The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even though returns had been filed by the petitioner for the respective assessment years, the respondent had wrongly arrived at the conclusion that no returns had been filed by the petitioner, intime. However, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to accept such a contention, at this stage. Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the available objections against the impugned orders, by availing the appeal remedy, before the appropriate authority, as per Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, including the claim that the petitioner had filed the returns for the respective assessment years, in time. The petitioner is permitted to file the appeals, within aperiod of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarcseToThe Commercial Tax Officer, Namakkal City Assessment Circle, Namakkal, Namakkal District.2 cc To Mr.A.Immanuel, Advocate, SR.22656.2 cc To The Special Government Pleader (Taxes), SR.22843 & 20019.Writ Petition Nos.5523 and 5524 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 KU(CO)RVL 25.04.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Tamil Nadu Value AddedTax Act, 2006 — s. 22(6)(a); Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 — s. 51; theTamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 — s. 51.
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.