Madras High Court
Shapporji Pallonji & Company Pvt. ... vs The State Tax Officer ( ... on 5 October, 2021
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Writ Appeal No.2558 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.16638 of 2021
Shapporji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its General Manager
(Accounts & Administration),
SP Infocity, Module 4-A, 2nd Floor, A Block
40, MGR Salai, Kandachavadi,
Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. .. Appellant
-vs-
1.The State Tax Officer ( Intelligence) FAC,
Collection and Arrear,
O/o. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), (Intelligence),
Commercial Taxes Building,
Integrated Master Plan Collectorate Complex,
Villupuram – 605002.
2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Ranipet IN Checkpost,
Serkadu, Ranipet. .. Respondents
Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
09.09.2021 in W.P.No.19124 of 2021 and set aside the same.
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.R.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. M.Venkateswaran
Government Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated
09.09.2021 in W.P.No.19124 of 2021.
2.The petitioner had filed the said writ petition challenging the notice
issued by the first respondent. By the said notice, the appellant was advised
to pay the compounding fee of Rs.8,66,074/- within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of the notice, failing which the first respondent informed the
appellant that action will be taken under the provisions of the Revenue
Recovery Act for recovery of the said account. The appellant filed the writ
petition contending that the said demand by notice dated 31.03.2021 is
stated to be in pursuance to the proceedings of the Deputy Commercial Tax
Officer, Ranipet [IN] Checkpost in G.D.No.49/2012-13 dated 20.09.2016
and the said proceedings was never communicated to the appellant. The
learned Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
that the order impugned was only a show cause notice. Challenging the
correctness of the order passed in the writ petition, the appellant is before
us.
3.We have heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.M.Venkateswaran, learned Government Counsel
appearing for the respondents and also placed the original files.
4.The file in Page No.19 reveals that the order dated 20.09.2021
passed by the second respondent was sent by registered post with
acknowledgment but has returned with the postal endorsement 'left'. The
said communication has been addressed to the appellant with the address
“No.36, Second Floor, CID Nagar, Chennai-600035”.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said
address is the old address and the change of address was duly intimated to
the respondent by communication dated 05.06.2012 and the same was taken
note of by the respondent and the adjudication final notice dated 27.07.2015
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
was sent to the new address at Kandanchavadi which was received by the
appellant and they have also sent their reply dated 07.08.2015. Thereafter,
another notice was sent to the very same Kandanchavadi address dated
26.08.2015 which was received by the appellant and the appellant has sent a
reply on 05.10.2015. However, the proceedings of the second respondent
dated 20.09.2016 had been sent to the old address as could be seen from the
original file. Therefore, the appellant cannot be blamed for the
communication which was sent to the old address.
6.Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant should be furnished
with a certified copy of the proceedings of the second respondent dated
20.09.2016 and they should be granted reasonable time to file a revision
petition before the concerned Joint Commissioner. It is only thereafter any
proceedings can be taken by the first respondent.
7.For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed, the order passed
in the writ petition is set aside and consequently, the demand dated
31.03.2021 is set aside with the direction to the second respondent to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
furnish the copy of the proceedings dated 20.09.2016. In order to avoid the
delay, we direct the appellant or their authorized representative to go over
the office of the second respondent within a week from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment and a certified copy of the said proceedings dated
20.09.2016 shall be handed over to the appellant or their authorized
representative after obtaining acknowledgement. From the date of receipt
of the certified copy of the said proceedings, the appellant is permitted to
file a revision petition before the Joint Commissioner having jurisdiction
over the same within fifteen days therefrom. If such revision petition is
filed, the Joint Commissioner shall entertain the revision petition without
rejecting the same on the ground of limitation and afford an opportunity of
personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant and pass
orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
05.10.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
cse
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
cse
To
1.The State Tax Officer ( Intelligence) FAC,
Collection and Arrear,
O/o. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), (Intelligence),
Commercial Taxes Building,
Integrated Master Plan Collectorate Complex,
Villupuram – 605002.
2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Ranipet IN Checkpost,
Serkadu, Ranipet.
W.A.No.2558 of 2021
05.10.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
