Madras High Court
Mjg Traders Rep. By Its Proprietor vs The State Tax Officer (Addl.) on 27 October, 2022
W.A. No. 2391 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.A. No. 2391 of 2022
&
C.M.P. No. 18309 of 2022
MJG Traders rep. by its Proprietor,
Mr.M. Jayagopal,
Pondy-Tindivanam Road,
Vanur taluk,
Villupuram – 605 111. ..Appellant
Vs.
The State Tax Officer (Addl.),
Tindivanam Circle,
Tindivanam – 604 001. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 14.06.2022 passed in
W.P. No. 11425 of 2019.
For Appellant :: Ms. Sri Harini
For Respondent :: Mr.T.N.C. Kaushik,
1\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2391 of 2022
Addl. Govt.Pleader
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
C. SARAVANAN,J.
The appellant has filed this writ appeal as against the order dated
14.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.11425 of 2019.
By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order
passed by the respondent dated 20.06.2018 for the assessment year 2013-
2014.
2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner appears to be that the
petitioner's turnover was below the threshold limit and therefore, the writ
petitioner was not liable to pay tax. Therefore, the order passed by the
respondent was required to be quashed, which the Writ Court had failed to
note. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge upholding the order of the respondent is liable to be set aside.
2\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2391 of 2022
3. Opposing the same, learned Additional Government Pleader for
the respondent would submit that the writ petition itself was not
maintainable as the writ petitioner without availing the alternate remedy,
had slept over its rights under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value
Added Tax Act, 2006. It is therefore submitted that the order dismissing the
writ petition deserves to be upheld.
4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader
for the respondent.
5. It is noticed that the respondent had passed an order on
20.06.2018. Instead of filing a statutory appeal before the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner, the appellant/writ petitioner had invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
way of a writ petition long after the expiry of the limitation period for filing
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
3\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2391 of 2022
AND
C. SARAVANAN,J.
nv
an appeal. Since the order has been passed by the respondent only after
issuing notice to the appellant/writ petitioner, calling for objections, if any,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under challenge save
that we give liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal is
disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (C.S.N.J.)
nv 27.10.2022
To
The State Tax Officer (Addl.),
Tindivanam Circle,
Tindivanam – 604 001.
W.A. No. 2391 of 2022
4\4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
