Madras High Court
M/S. Chennai Polymers (P) Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 11 April, 2022
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALA
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
M/s. Chennai Polymers (P) Ltd.,
B-7-3, Gemni Parsn Apartments,
599, Anna Salai, Chennai – 6. ..Appellant in both
appeals
Vs.
The Commercial Tax Officer,
T. Nagar (East) Assessment Circle,
Chennai. ..Respondent in
both appeals
Prayer: Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 13.03.2018 passed in W.P. Nos. 32078 & 32077 of 2004
respectively.
For Appellant :: Mr.S. Raveekumar
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
For Respondent :: Mr.C. Harsharaj,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
JUDGMENT
S. Vaidyanathan,J.
And
N. Mala,J.
Without exhausting the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal,
wherein the appellant will have to deposit 25% of the amount determined by
the authorities, the writ petitions were filed, which were rejected by the
learned Single Judge, against which the present appeals have been
preferred.
2. When the learned counsel for the appellant was about to
advance arguments on the merits of the mater, this Court posed a question
that in case of any adverse inference drawn and final orders passed, he
cannot seek for an alternate remedy to approach the appellate authority and
this Court will not entertain and that the appellant can deposit 25% of the
amount determined or such other amount so that the matter will be remitted
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
to the Original Authority and orders can be passed depending upon the
merits of the pleadings made by the appellant/writ petitioner.
3. On the advice by Mr.S. Raveekumar, learned counsel for the
appellant, the appellant has filed an affidavit dated 11.04.2022 wherein it is
stated that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit 25% of tax demand
for both the years on the turnover alleged to be suppressed and in dispute,
being Rs.7.7. Lakhs and further, the learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant is willing to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs to give a quietus
to the matter.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as
per the revised assessment, the tax demand is more than Rs.60 lakhs and
that even if 25% of the tax demand has to be deposited, as per the
provisions of the Act, the appellant will have to deposit a sum of Rs.15
lakhs.
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 31 of Tamil
Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which is the relevant provision, is
extracted hereunder:
“31. Appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner –
(1) Any person objecting to an order passed by the
appropriate authority under Section 4-A, sub-section (3) of
Section 10, Section 12, Section 12-A, Section 14, Section 15,
sub-sections 91) and (2) of Section 16, Section 18, sub-
section (2) of Section 22, Section 23 or Section 27 other than
an order passed by an Assistant Commissioer (Assessment)
may, within a period of of thirty days from the date on which
the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, appeal
against such order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
having jurisdiction:
Provided that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
may, within a further period of thirty days admit an appeal
presented after the expiration of the first mentioned period of
thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient
cause for not presenting the appeal within the first mentioned
period:
Provided further that in the case of an order under sub-
secton (3) of Section 10, Section 12, Section 12-A, Sectin 14,
4\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
Section 15 or sub-sections (1) and 92) of Section 16, no
appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section unless it is
accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax
admitted by the appellant to be due or of such instalments
thereof as might have become payable, as the case may be
and [twenty five] per cent of the difference of the tax assessed
by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the
appellant.”
As the determination of the amount was as early as in 2002 and that 20
years have gone by and that the appellant has got an alternative remedy by
way of an appeal, this Court directs the appellant to deposit a sum of
Rs.15 lakhs for both assessment years without prejudice to the rights of the
parties and the matter is remitted to the Original Authority for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The appellant is
expected to co-operate and a decision shall be taken by the Original
Authority within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. This Court also makes it clear that it is open to the parties to
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
5\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
N. MALA,J.
nv
produce additional documents and additional statements and the same shall
be considered by the Original Authority and a decision may be arrived at
after affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further clarified that in case,
any adverse orders are passed against the appellant, the amount paid by the
appellant shall be given credit to for remitting the balance amount in case,
he prefers any departmental appeal. The writ appeals are disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (N.M.J.)
nv 11.04.2022
To
The Commercial Tax Officer,
T. Nagar (East) Assessment Circle,
Chennai.
W.A. Nos. 421 & 424 of 2022
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
