M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition Nos.882 and 7238 of 2011 W.P.No.882 of 2011:1 C.VENKATACHALAM [ v. 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC) SURAMANGALAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE SALEM.[
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the respondentsare set aside and the petiioners are granted fifteen days time fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce all thenecessary documents, to substantiate their claims, to therespondents, in respect of the demand of tax under the relevantprovisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the respondentsare set aside and the petiioners are granted fifteen days time fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce all thenecessary documents, to substantiate their claims, to therespondents, in respect of the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.3.2011CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition Nos.882 and 7238 of 2011W.P.No.882 of 2011:1 C.VENKATACHALAM [ PETITIONER ] Vs1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC) SURAMANGALAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE SALEM.[ RESPONDENT ]Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of therespondent in Form I Section 8 Distraint order in Na.Ka.2235/06 A3dated 21.12.2010 and quash the same.W.P.No.7238 of 2011:1 M/S.BALAVENKATESWARA SAGO [ PETITIONER ] FACTORY REP.BY ITS PROP.MR.C.VENKATACHALAM Vs1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [ RESPONDENT ] SURAMANGALAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE SALEM.Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of therespondent in his proceedings in CST No.409070/91-92 dated 15.07.2005and quash the same as illegal and to pass such further or otherorders. For petitioners : Mr.S.Ramanathan For respondents : Mr.R.Mahadevan Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N
O R D E RBoth the writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugnedassessment orders passed by the respondents, under the provisions ofthe Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that itwould suffice, if the petitioners are granted fifteen days time tosubmit all the necessary documents to substantiate their claims, inrespect of the assessment years for which the assessments had beenmade by the respondent, under the provisions of the Central Sales TaxAct, 1956. He had also submitted that the petitioners would not seekfor further time to produce the necessary documents.
The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearingfor the respondents, had not objected to such an order being passedby this Court granting time to the petitioners to submit all thenecessary documents to substantiate their claims.
Operative part
In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the respondentsare set aside and the petiioners are granted fifteen days time fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce all thenecessary documents, to substantiate their claims, to therespondents, in respect of the demand of tax under the relevantprovisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On such production ofthe documents by the petitioners, the respondents shall consider thesame and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordancewith law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. ConnectedM.P.Nos.1,1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarlanTo1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) (FAC) SURAMANGALAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE SALEM. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER SURAMANGALAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE SALEM.1 cc To The Government Pleader, TaxesSR.22039Writ Petition Nos.882 and 7238 of 2011NG(CO)PMK.30.3.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the respondentsare set aside and the petiioners are granted fifteen days time fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce all thenecessary documents, to substantiate their claims, to therespondents, in respect of the demand of tax under the relevantprovisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
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.