M/s.L.G.Electronics India Private Limited v. CT) Appeals
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.50lakhs, as part of the tax, said to be payable by him, and to furnisha personal bond for the balance amount, within four weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 1-3-2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.1810 of 2012 andM.P.No.1 of 2012M/s.L.G.Electronics India Private Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, AA-11, Fatima Towers, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040,Tamil Nadu... Petitioner. Versus1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Finance, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
The Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals,3rd Floor, Wavoo Complex,191, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001.
The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-1,Large Tax Payer Unit, Dugar Towers, 5th Floor,34/123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords relating to the stay order No.Sp.No.6/11, in Ap.ST.No.10/11,dated 19.1.2012, passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same andconsequently, direct the 2nd respondent to hear the appeal withoutinsistence on any further payment of tax or bank guarantee. For Petitioner : Mr.V.PanchanathanFor Respondents : Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan (R1) Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai (Taxes) (R2 & R3)
O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsels appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petitionchallenging the stay order, dated 19.1.2012, passed by the secondrespondent, in Sp.No.6/11, in Ap.CST.No.10/11.3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that the demand of tax had arisen only due to the clerical errorsin the Central Sales Tax return filed by the petitioner, for themonths of May and August of the year, 2008, and for the month of March, 2009, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009, wherein, thefigure for the goods stock transferred from outside the State wasshown as goods transferred outside Tamilnadu. 3a. By the impugned order passed by the second respondent, thepetitioner has been directed to make a payment of Rs.98,72,210/-,which is 25% of the balance of the disputed tax, for the year 2008-2009, and to provide security/bank guarantee for Rs.2,96,16,628/-, onor before 17.2.2012. The second respondent had directed thepetitioner to make the pre-deposit, based on the reason that theverification of assessment orders, passed on 27.6.2011, and 2.8.2011,show that the petitioner had not raised the issue relating to theclerical mistakes, said to have occurred in the Central Sales TaxReturn filed by the petitioner, before the assessing authority, either at the stage of the final assessment, or at the stage of themodification of the assessment.
The impugned order had also been passed on the premise thatthe assessment in dispute had been finalized only after thepetitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to explain its case. The goods that were transferred-in and transferred within the Stateof Tamilnadu had been shown as stock transerred-out. In the CentralSales Tax Return the assessee has to provide, inter alia, the valueof the goods stock transferred outside the State. For the goods stocktransferred out, the assessee has to produce Form-F, issued by thereceiving State, based on which the stock transferred outside thestate would not be liable to tax, under the provisions of the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956.
It had also been submitted that the assessing officer hadalso noted the arithmetical error. Since, there is no provision toreview the assessment order, the petitioner had to file an appealbefore the second respondent, against the assessment order of thethird respondent, dated 2.8.2011. The petitioner had also filed astay petition, before the second respondent, under Section 31(5) of Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, praying for an order of stayagainst the collection of tax of Rs.5,26,91,258/-, disputed in theappeal filed by the petitioner, in Ap.CST.10/2011, before theappellate forum. However, in spite of the fact that the assessmentorder, dated 2.8.2011, had been passed by the third respondent, dueto certain clerical error that had been committed in the CentralSales Tax return, filed by the petitioner, for the assessment year2008-2009, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to makea further payment of Rs.98,72,210/-, being 25% of the balance amountof the disputed tax, for the year 2008-2009, and also to providesecurity/bank guarantee for Rs.2,96,16,628/-, on or before17.12.2012, arbitrarily, without proper application of mind. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
It had also been stated that the petitioner had paid 25% ofthe disputed tax at the time of the filing of the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, in cash, as part of the balance amount, said to be payable by the petitioner, and to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount. On thepetitioner complying with the said conditions, the second respondentmay be directed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner and passappropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshas no serious objection for this Court passing an order, consideringthe submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner.
In view of the above, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.50lakhs, as part of the tax, said to be payable by him, and to furnisha personal bond for the balance amount, within four weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioner complyingwith the said conditions, the second respondent shall hear the appealand pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance withlaw, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is orderedaccordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionis closed.cshSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Finance, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals,3rd Floor, Wavoo Complex,191, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001.3. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-1,Large Tax Payer Unit, Dugar Towers, 5th Floor,34/123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.15179+ 2 cc to Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate SR No.14640, 15719VSN(CO)SR/7.3.2012Writ Petition No.1810 of 2012
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.