Madras High Court
R.Prabhu vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 14 June, 2022
W.P.Nos.13404 of 2019 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.Nos.13404, 13409, 13413, 13417 & 13421 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.13512, 13514, 13517, 13519, 13522 & 13526 of 2019
R.Prabhu,
Partner,
Tvl.Rathinam Enterprises,
No.111, Thoppai Street, Royapuram,
Chennai – 600 013. .... Petitioner in all WPs
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Royapuram Assessment Circle,
Kummalammankoil Street,
Chennai – 600 081. .... Respondent in all WPs
Prayer in W.P.No.13404 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records in TIN No.33840041194/2011-12, dated 28.03.2018 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and contrary to law and
direct the respondent to follow the procedure under the TNVAT Act.
Prayer in W.P.No.13409 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records in TIN No.33840041194/2012-13, dated 28.03.2018 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and contrary to law and
direct the respondent to follow the procedure under the TNVAT Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13404 of 2019 etc. batch
Prayer in W.P.No.13413 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records in TIN No.33840041194/2013-14, dated 28.03.2018 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and contrary to law and
direct the respondent to follow the procedure under the TNVAT Act.
Prayer in W.P.No.13413 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records in TIN No.33840041194/2014-15, dated 28.03.2018 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and contrary to law and
direct the respondent to follow the procedure under the TNVAT Act.
Prayer in W.P.No.13421 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records in TIN No.33840041194/2015-16, dated 28.03.2018 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and contrary to law and
direct the respondent to follow the procedure under the TNVAT Act.
In all W.Ps.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvamany
For Respondent : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
These writ petitions, challenge orders of assessment passed in relation to
five periods, 2011-12 to 2015-16, all dated 28.03.2018 in terms of the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act'). I am of
the view that the writ petitions are misconceived and not maintainable for the
reason that they have been filed only on 26.04.2019 more than one year from
the passing of the impugned orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13404 of 2019 etc. batch
2. The statutory time limit for filing of first appeal under Section 51 of
the Act is 30 days. A further period of 30 days is provided, within which time
the appeal may be presented with an application for condonation, to be
considered on merit and at the discretion of the Assessing Authority. In this
case, the statutory limit provided, including for condonation of delay is long
gone.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a slew of judgments, the most
recent being Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs.M/s.Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 36 GSTL 305] held that a challenge to an
order of assessment is not liable to be entertained if it is made beyond the
period of statutory limitation. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India
does provide for room to the High Court to look into the reasons for the delay
and condone the same, such discretion must be exercised sparingly and having
regard to the reasons causing such delay.
4. I have, in a batch of matters in S.K.S. Tex Vs. The Assistant
Commissioner (ST) (FAC) W.P.No.14656 of 20121 order dated 16.07.2021 and
batch, applied the above ratio to decide the challenge to several orders of
assessment. The reasons for delay have been examined as a preliminary issue
and only in the event that there was sufficient reasons adduced justifying the
delay, have I proceeded to hold the writ petition maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13404 of 2019 etc. batch
5. Adopting the same approach in the writ petition, I find that the
impugned order of assessment is dated 28.03.2018. An appeal ought to have
been filed on or before 23.07.2018 as the order has been served upon the
petitioner on 23.06.2018. The period of limitation, including the period for
which delay may be condoned, expires 60 days after the date of service of the
notice. The present writ petitions have been filed only on 26.04.2019 with a
delay of nine months (approx).
6. I have carefully perused the writ affidavits and find no reference
whatsoever to delay, leave alone an explanation therefor. Learned counsel also
has no explanation to put forth in in this regard. In such circumstances, the writ
petitions are held non-maintainable, and dismissed as such. Connected writ
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
14.06.2022
nst
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13404 of 2019 etc. batch
To
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Royapuram Assessment Circle,
Kummalammankoil Street,
Chennai – 600 081.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.13404 of 2019 etc. batch
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
nst
W.P.Nos.13404, 13409, 13413, 13417 & 13421 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.13512, 13514, 13517, 13519, 13522 & 13526 of 2019
14.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
