Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... vs Roverco Apparel Company Private ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 23105 Mad

                                                                 1

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 25.11.2021

                                                               Coram

                                        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                             and
                                          The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR

                                                    O.S.A.No.323 of 2021


                     Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
                     Company Circle II (1),
                     No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
                     Chennai 600 034.                                                 ..Appellant

                                                                Vs

                     1.Roverco Apparel Company Private Limited,
                       37, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet,
                       Chennai – 600 018.

                     2.Regional Director,
                       Ministry of Company Affairs,
                       Chennai.                                                     ..Respondents

                          Appeal preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules
                     against the order dated 01.06.2016 made in C.P.No.92 of 2016.

                                       For Appellant      ..     Mr.Karthik Ranganathan

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by learned

Single Judge dated 01 June 2016 on C.P.No.92 of 2016.

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

2. Learned advocate for the appellant was asked to explain, as

to why at this stage, interference should be made in the order dated

01 June 2016. In response to this, learned advocate for the appellant

has addressed the Court at length, but principally on merits.

Substance thereof is that, the officers of the Department ought to

have filed objections prior to 28 April 2016, which could not be done

etc. In support of this, various dates are informed to the Court - on

which date, which officer wrote what, to which officer, and for how

many days it was kept pending by him etc.

3. This Court, while examining the sustainability of the order

passed by learned single Judge, can not take into consideration the

lethargy, if any on the part of the officers of the Department. We do

not think it proper to examine the merits of the matter, when the first

query is not replied, as to what is wrong with the order of learned

single Judge of the year 2016.

4. In view of the above, the original side appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,) 25.11.2021 Index:Yes/No mmi/2

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

To

The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.

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

PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

and SATHI KUMAR, J.

mmi

O.S.A.No.323 of 2021

25.11.2021

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