Madras High Court
A.R.A.S.Motors (P) Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2008
A.R.A.S.Motors (P) Ltd.,
Thorough its Director,
No.38, T.P.K. Road,
Madurai - 625 001. ... Appellant / Petitioner in all Writ Appeals
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Netaji Road Assessment Circle,
Madurai.
...Respondents /Respondents in all Writ Appeals
COMMON PRAYER : Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this
Court in W.P(MD)Nos.9110, 3795 and 1281 of 2007, dated 08.01.2008.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
In all Writ Appeals
For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj,
Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The appellant/writ petitioner sought for a declaration that
Section 2(1)(aa) of Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, should
be read to mean that taxable turnover for the purpose of levy of
additional sales tax would mean only the turnover in excess of Rs.
10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore). This relief was refused by the Writ
Court on the ground that the issue is covered by a judgment of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16180 of 2004 etc.,
batch rendered on 17.11.2006, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court has pointed out that the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to
alternative remedy of filing an appeal.
2.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court went one step
further and said that the issue as to whether the liability to pay additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
tax will be on the turnover above Rupees Ten Crores or on the entire
taxable turn over, if the total turnover exceeds Rupees Ten Crores, would
also be gone into by the appellate authority.
3. Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in all the three Writ Appeals would submit that the learned
Single Judge is not right in applying the dictum of the Division Bench
judgment, inasmuch as the relief sought for before the Division Bench, is
one of prohibition, but the relief sought for in his writ petition is one for
declaration, which cannot be granted by the authority, in the appeal. He
would also point out that the appellate authority, being a creation of the
statute, cannot grant the relief of declaration.
4. Contending contra, Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Special
Government Pleader would submit that the issue relating to the quantum
of tax or the taxable turnover could be determined by the appellate
authority, de-horse the fact that whether a declaratory relief could be
granted or not. He would also rely upon the positive direction of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court to the effect that the appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
authority would decide the question relating to the interpretation of
Section 2(1)(aa) of Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970.
5. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant. An appellate authority constituted under the
provisions of an enactment has undoubtedly the power to interpret the
provisions of enactment and rule on what would be the intent of the
legislation. Therefore, we do not find that, merely because the prayer is
different, the case on hand would not be covered by the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court.
6. We, therefore, dismiss these Writ Appeals, confirming the
orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.
9110, 3795 and 1281 of 2007, dated 08.01.2008. However, considering
the fact that these Writ appeals were pending before this Court, the
appellant is granted liberty to file an appeal against the original
assessment order before the appropriate appellate authority within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The appellate authority will entertain the appeal without insisting on an
application for condonation of delay, if it is filed within a period of six
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and proceed to
determine the same in accordance with law. The liberty is granted in view
of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court had granted such liberty
and many appeals have been filed, pursuant to the order of the Division
Bench of this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[R.S.M, J.] & [N.S.K., J.]
23.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
Netaji Road Assessment Circle,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
COMMON JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN
W.A(MD)Nos.185 to 187 of 2008
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
