J.Ganesh vs The State Of Tamilnadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 15929 Mad

                                                                                W.P.No.13408 / 2018

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                     DATED: 05.08.2021
                                                         CORAM:
                             THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
                                              W.P. No. 13408 of 2018 and
                                            WMP Nos.15806 and 15807 of 2018

                J.Ganesh
                M/s.Madras Steel Corporation
                323 Market Road,
                Pollachi
                Coimbatore District.                                  ...      Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                1.The State of Tamilnadu
                  rep. By the Secretary to Government
                  Commercial Taxes & Registration Department
                  Fort St. George,
                  Chennai.

                2.The Assistant Commissioner
                  Pollachi (East) Assessment Circle,
                  Pollachi,
                  Coimbatore District.                                ...      Respondents

                Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
                issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent
                in his proceedings in TIN 33072261899/2008-09 dated 20.03.2018 and quash
                the same as illegal.
                                   For Petitioner    : Mr.S.Ramanathan
                                   For Respondents   : Mr.V.Nanmaran
                                                     Government Advocate for R1 & R2

                1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                     W.P.No.13408 / 2018


                                                          ORDER

The writ petition is filed to call for the records in respect of the

proceedings dated 20.03.2018 on the file of the second respondent and quash

the same.

2.The petitioner is a dealer in Hardware and Paints. The petitioner

effects purchase only from registered dealers situated inside the State and

effects only second or subsequent sales within the State of Tamilnadu. The

petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax and is

an assessee on the file of the second respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a

submission that the issues raised with reference to the provisions of the Act are

elaborately considered by this Court and thus, no more res integra. The

judgment dated 03.10.2019 is not taken by way of appeal by the State and

therefore, the said judgment is to be followed for the purpose of disposing of

the present writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.13408 / 2018

4. The findings of the judgment dated 03.10.2019 in

W.P.No.9996/2012 are extracted hereunder:

“40.The petitioner in that case, a dealer in timber had challenged an assessment for the period 2010-11. The turnover of the petitioner had crossed the limit of Rs.50.00 lakhs in March 2011 and the sales turnover for the entire year was a sum of Rs.63,50,354/-. The Department thus took the view that since the turnover for the year was in excess of Rs.50.00 lakhs, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim the benefit of the presumptive tax scheme and would have to be regularly assessed, whereas the petitioner took the view that as per the amendment in 2011, only the excess over and above Rs.50.00 lakhs could be regularly assessed. The learned Judge took note of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vatika Township Private Limited (supra), Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Another Limited (1968 AIR 1336) and Sebi V.Alliance Finstoc Ltd. ((2015) 16 SCC 731) as well as the doctrine of fairness in coming to the conclusion that Act 27 of 2011 would have retrospective application. In conclusion, he set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the respondent to pass orders afresh after hearing the petitioner.

41.This decision has not be challenged by the revenue and hence, even applying the principle of consistency,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.13408 / 2018

the argument of the petitioner is liable to be accepted.

42.In the light of the above discussion, W.P.Nos.9996 of 2012 and 17314 of 2015 are allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed with no order as to costs.”

5. In view of the judgment cited supra, the impugned order in the

present writ petition passed by the second respondent in proceedings in TIN

33072261899/2008-09 dated 20.03.2018 is quashed and the matter is remitted

back to the respondents for the purpose of fresh adjudication and by following

the principles laid down in the judgment cited supra.

6. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.

Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

                                                                                                05.08.2021
                Index    : Yes
                Internet : Yes

                Speaking Order

                RR

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.13408 / 2018

To

1.The Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes & Registration Department Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Commissioner Pollachi (East) Assessment Circle, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.13408 / 2018

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

RR

W.P.No. 13408 of 2018

05.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/